Chapter Five – Participatory Planning Methodologies and ...© Tippett 2004 – Chapter Five –...

© Tippett 2004 – Chapter Five – Participatory Planning Methodologies and Ecologically Informed Design

Tippett, J. ( © 2004). A participatory protocol for ecologically informed design within river catchments, unpublished Ph.D. submitted to The University of Manchester for the Degree of Ph.D. in the Faculty of Arts. 137

Chapter Five –

Participatory Planning Methodologies and

Ecologically Informed Design 5 Chapter Five - Participatory Planning Methodologies and Ecologically Informed Design .............................................138

5.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................................138

5.1.1 Structure of this Chapter .....................................................................................................................................................138

5.2 Participatory Planning Methodologies, an Overview.........................................................................................................139

5.2.1 Introduction to different methodologies.............................................................................................................................143

5.3 The DesignWays Approach .................................................................................................................................................149

5.4 Comparison of DesignWays and other Methodologies .....................................................................................................151

5.4.1 Attributes and Components Used in Review......................................................................................................................152

5.5 Educational framework of sustainability ............................................................................................................................153

5.5.1 The Natural Step...................................................................................................................................................................154

5.5.2 Critique of The Natural Step model.....................................................................................................................................159

5.5.3 Comparison of Methodologies - Educational framework of sustainability ......................................................................164

5.6 Ecological design process ..................................................................................................................................................166

5.6.1 Critique of ecological design...............................................................................................................................................168

5.6.2 Comparison of Methodologies - Ecological design process ............................................................................................171

5.7 Creative involvement of stakeholders in planning process..............................................................................................173

5.7.1 Critique of participation in planning ...................................................................................................................................174

5.7.2 Comparison of Methodologies - Creative involvement of stakeholders in planning process........................................179

5.8 Scaleable design language to link different geographic levels of scale ..........................................................................183

5.8.1 Critique of working at different levels of scale...................................................................................................................184

5.8.2 Comparison of Methodologies – Scaleable design language to link different geographic levels of scale....................187

5.9 Underlying framework of systems thinking........................................................................................................................188

5.9.1 Critique of systems thinking ...............................................................................................................................................193

5.9.2 Comparison of Methodologies - Underlying framework of systems thinking .................................................................196

5.10 Need for a diversity of approaches .....................................................................................................................................199

5.11 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................................................200

© Tippett 2004 - Chapter Five - Participatory Planning Methodologies and Ecologically Informed Design

138

5 Chapter Five - Participatory Planning Methodologies and Ecologically Informed Design

5.1 Introduction The European Union Water Framework Directive (WFD) offers an unparalleled

opportunity for improving river basin management. A broad range of participation and

information provision activities is essential to achieve its goals, and is required by the

Directive. Active participation in catchment planning is seen as an important component

of its successful delivery, and is encouraged in the CIS documentation. The

environmental goals of the Directive are ambitious. This implies a need to re-examine

many processes and management practices in river catchments, as well as the need for

behavioural change amongst a broad range of stakeholders and community members.

This research tests DesignWays, a toolkit for engaging participation in planning, as a

mechanism for maximizing the long-term social and environmental benefits of

stakeholder participation in planning. Following ten years of development and

improvement through learning cycles in practice, the stage of research described in this

chapter involved an in-depth exploration of the theoretical basis of DesignWays.

5.1.1 Structure of this Chapter A framework for understanding the different components and stages of participatory

planning is developed in the first part of this chapter. This includes brief descriptions of

twenty-eight different participatory planning methodologies, followed by a description

of the DesignWays approach. The following section of theoretical analysis is structured

around the five key attributes of DesignWays. The major influences on DesignWays

and their background are elucidated. A comparison of the 28 different methodologies

introduced in the beginning of the chapter summarises each of these sections. This

comparison comes in two parts: a table structured around components that can express

the attribute under discussion (e.g. ecological design process), and a brief narrative

exploring how DesignWays fits in the field of ecologically informed, participatory


139

design. A table at the end of each section takes these components and introduces the

methods and tools used in DesignWays to deal with the issues raised in this chapter.

These components are discussed in more depth through qualitative analysis of

participants’ experience of the process in Chapter 7.

Figure 5-1 Research Methodology - Step 2

5.2 Participatory Planning Methodologies, an Overview In a broad survey conducted by the ODPM, building on a previous survey of public

participation in local governments by the DETR (de Montfort University and The

University of Strathclyde 1998), four broad forms of participation were identified

(adapted from Birch 2002):


140

1. traditional forms, e.g. public meetings, consultation documents, co-option to

committees and question and answer sessions;

2. customer-oriented participation, e.g. service satisfaction surveys,

complaints/suggestions schemes;

3. innovative methods, e.g. interactive websites, citizens’ panels, focus groups and

referendums;

4. and innovative approaches that encourage citizens to deliberate over issues, e.g.

citizens’ juries, community plans/needs analysis, visioning exercises and issue forums.

Article 14 of the WFD recognises the need for three types of participation in river basin

planning:

1. active involvement;

2. consultation (plans and options are made available for comments);

3. and information supply

Active involvement suggests a greater degree of engagement than the processes of

consultation and information supply, and can be seen as moving up Arnstein’s (1969)

‘ladder of participation’, towards greater community empowerment. It implies

stakeholder and community31 participation in the actual planning process, as opposed to

responding to plans created by experts. This research focuses on innovative, deliberative

approaches, through the active engagement of participation in planning. The

methodologies described in the review have been taken from the broad field of

participatory planning, not from that of consultation.

Participation is not a monolithic process, but is embedded in particular institutional

contexts. Engaging participation in planning requires several components and processes.

These are summarised in the table below. Whilst these can be read as a linear sequence,

31 Stakeholders can be defined as groups or people with an interest in an action, program, policy or organisation. The type of interaction can be one of influence on, e.g. the stakeholder can exert an effect on the action or party, either positive or negative, or influenced by – e.g. the stakeholder is affected by an action or party. In a systems view, stakeholders are seen as “a community who work together in a patterned interaction” (Eden and Ackermann 1998, pg. 118). Whilst community members are a particular type of stakeholder, in as much as they have a stake in their area of residence, in this thesis the term stakeholders is used to mean people who have other interests, such as an interest in the environment of the area, or a business that operates in the area. Project Officers who work with community members are also considered stakeholders. The term ‘community members and stakeholders’ is used in the text to denote both groups.


141

starting with identifying the project boundaries, this is a fluid process with several

overlaps. Many of the processes are (or should ideally be) ongoing throughout. Table

5-1 was first introduced in Chapter 3, Methodology. Its starting point was a

reconceptualisation of Arnstein’s ladder of participation, recognising that there are

several components of participation, and that each could be carried out with a greater or

lesser degree of participation. These aspects are elaborated in Table 5-1 Components of

participatory planning below.

This table could form the basis of a Decision Support Tool for developing an overall

programme of participation in planning. This research focuses on the stage ‘Active

involvement in planning’.

There has been a proliferation of participation techniques in the past several years, as

the case for increasing participation in planning has become more widely accepted. In

the UK the implementation of LA21 programmes has been a catalyst for increased

innovation in participation. There are a range of methodologies being used, “including visioning, community profiling and village appraisals, focus groups,

Planning for Real exercises, forums, round tables, citizens’ juries and

advisory committees” (Warburton 2002, pg. 8). A survey of LA21 processes

conducted by International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (2002, pg. 15)

showed that the most common participation methods were “community meetings and information sessions, questionnaires, community workshops, and working

groups”. The ODPM survey referenced above shows that Local Authority use of

innovative, visioning techniques has risen sharply since 1997. Experience across Local

Authorities varies, however, and some practitioners feel that there are still few

opportunities to use their skills in stakeholder dialogue, and little or no commitment

from senior management for active participatory planning (Soutar 2003, key participant

in the LGMB Consensus Building pilots of 1996/97, pers. comm.).


142

Table 5-1 Components of participatory planning

Component of Participation

Questions and Processes

Identify project boundaries and scope of participation – WHY, WHERE, WHAT?

• Why carry out participation? • What are the goals and objectives? • What is the strategic overview for the site/area to be planned? • What existing planning processes are happening in the area, and is

there any opportunity to work with these to minimise overlap? • Where to do a project, which areas are going to have changes that

benefit from participation? • Is there interest in participatory planning? • Are there local organisations and networks interested in planning? • How does this fit into the timing of funding, project approval, etc ? • Think early about decision making structures, and ask: What is the

desired scope and level of participation? • Is this to be a broad based planning effort, or an attempt to elicit

feedback with a more narrow, issue based focus? • Explore scope for interaction beyond project boundaries • Project identification can in and of itself be participatory, what is

important in this area? Or a community group can come up with an idea and seek to be involved in developing it

Identify stakeholders – WHO?

• Are there existing residents’ associations or ‘Friends of’ groups? • This stage requires exploration of the level of trust between

stakeholders, community members and decision makers, and an analysis of previous participation and particular political concerns

• Stakeholder mapping, identification of key stakeholders and players, and of ‘hard to reach’ groups

• Needs sufficiently broad representation, including: key players; ·pivotal resources; political lynchpins; wide range of sectors included frequently excluded groups; and user groups to allow for ongoing management, maintenance and use

• Explore possibilities of working within existing networks and partnerships

• Consider the creation of formal stakeholder groups Inform and engage stakeholders

• Outreach to groups and community members • Create incentives for stakeholders to participate, e g skills training • Develop plans that work in local context • Explore different possible streams for funding as develop project • Careful attention to information provision and creative communication

Active involvement in planning - developing the vision and action plan - HOW?

• Design - Active engagement in planning process (depending on the level of decision making power given to the process)

• Requires decision about techniques for engaging participation • May include process of consultation to elicit a broader range of

responses to options and plans Institutional structure and professional capacity to deliver and manage projects and plans

• Can include partnerships and community trusts • Delivery can be through community devolved implementation • Consider support for ‘Friends of’ groups either existing or new • Explore opportunities for community-based management of site

Monitoring and review • Can include participatory monitoring of participation process as a review of effectiveness

• Develop feedback loops to incorporate learning from implementation Governance • Interaction of participation with planning process and policy context

• Ongoing process of integration with governing structures and institutions

• How is the planning integrated with formal decision making processes?


143

5.2.1 Introduction to different methodologies Twenty-eight methodologies that can be used to engage active involvement in planning

are compared in this chapter. Consultative methods and methods for informing a broad

range of people are not included in this review. The choice of methodologies was

derived from the literature and the author’s international work experience. This includes

several years spent studying with key people in the emerging field of ecological design

and sustainability planning, and her experience developing and testing the DesignWays

process (see Preface). The list of methodologies is not exhaustive, but covers a

comprehensive range of techniques in common use. They are organised under the broad

headings:

• Participatory Planning Processes;

• Dialogue Processes;

• Systems Methodologies;

• Environmental Management;

• Sustainability Planning;

• and Ecological Design.

It is difficult to place the methodologies under only one heading, as many of the

methodologies could be used for different purposes, dependent on the context. These

headings are intended to provide a general guideline, and methodologies have been

placed under the heading that offers a good fit for their widely accepted use. The

headings are defined below:

• ‘Participatory Planning Processes’ are those active collaborative processes which

have an explicitly ‘territorial and spatial perspective’ (Healey 1997, pg.

4) and a focus on planning changes in the future physical environment.

• ‘Dialogue Processes’ are ‘deliberative and inclusionary processes’

(Jordan and O'Riordan 2000) that can have a broad range of applications and foci.

They can be applied to spatial and environmental planning, but that is not

necessarily their main focus.


144

• ‘Systems Methodologies’ are predicated on applying the principles of systems

thinking to real-world applications. Several of the methodologies in this review

include, and are influenced by, systems thinking (e.g. Future Search), but are not

placed under this heading as the application of systems principles is not their main

focus.

• ‘Environmental Management’ includes those methodologies mainly concerned

with environmental impacts and improvements. ICM is focused on the water

environment and EIA and SEA are concerned with ‘evaluating the

environmental consequences’ of proposed projects (EIA) and policy,

programmes or plan initiatives (von Seht 1999, pg. 1).

• ‘Sustainability Planning’ lies in the interplay of maintaining environmental

quality, and promoting economic vitality and social equity. Whilst many of the

methodologies described in this review can be used for sustainability planning32,

those classified under ‘sustainability planning’ in this review are those especially

concerned with making the concept of sustainability operable.

• ‘Ecological Design’ refers to the process of applying principles derived from

natural systems to the design of future options. This process can be applied to

spatial planning, building design,

• and production and manufacturing processes.

Table 5-2 includes a brief description of the twenty-eight different participatory

planning methodologies, which will be explored in more depth in the remainder of this

chapter. All of these techniques can be applied in a range of contexts. See Appendix Six

for a more detailed version of this chart, which includes details of organisations and

resources, key authors and research carried out to evaluate these processes.

These methodologies cover a range from encouraging dialogue processes in general, to

a more specific concern with environmental issues. There are several overlaps in the

methodologies, and some of the proprietary techniques could be seen as examples of the

more general methodologies, e.g. ‘Planning for Real’ is a particular form of

32 Whilst participation is considered to be the foundation of the Local Agenda 21 (LA21) process, LA21 is not necessarily a participatory planning process per se, it is a broader programme, within which “local governments are using a variety of methods to reach out to their communities to improve public participation” (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives 2002, pg. 15).


145

‘Community Planning and Architecture’. The differences between these methodologies

in terms of accreditation and status are clarified in Table 5-3.

Table 5-2 Description of different planning methodologies (summary)

Methodology Description Participatory Planning Processes Planning for Real® Planning for Real is a participatory planning methodology that uses large-scale models and

options cards to allow participants to develop and prioritise ideas for their area. It is a “highly visible, hands-on community development and empowerment tool” (Wates 2000, pg. 100).

Enquiry by Design “This technique brings stakeholders and urban design professionals together for an intensive period of joint work outside of the normal procedural context. Using creative design-driven processes, they seek to find ‘win-win’ solutions for sustainable development” (Barton, Grant and Guise 2003, pg. 79)

Community Envisioning

This is a generic term that covers facilitated visioning processes. Participants are asked to imagine a desired future and to express this in a variety of ways. Workshops often use guided visualisation techniques.

Action Planning “Action planning events allow people to produce plans of action at carefully structured sessions at which all those affected work creatively together” (Wates 2000, pg. 24).

Community Planning/ Architecture

Community planning and architecture are broad areas of activity that engage client and public participation in the design process for settlements and landscapes. The scope and depth of participation can vary, from a general survey of preferences to in-depth hands on design workshops, which help participants to understand the design skills utilised by professionals. “The activity of community design is based on the principle that the environment works better if the people affected by its changes are actively involved in its creation and management instead of being treated as passive consumers” (Sanoff 2000, pg. x).

Parish/ Community Mapping

Parish or community mapping is a process of involving residents in creating maps of their areas. The mapping process and the final products can take many forms, and may use many media. They are intended to distinguish the character and distinctiveness of a local place, drawing on the memories and knowledge of the people who live there.

Dialogue Processes Future Search “Future Search is large-group, participatory planning process

aimed at building common directions for action on complex social and organizational issues” (Polanyi 2002, pg. 357). It aims to ‘get the whole system in the room’ by having as many participants as possible from a wide range of backgrounds attend.

Appreciative Inquiry Appreciative Inquiry has been described as “the art and practice of asking questions that strengthen a system’s capacity to apprehend, anticipate, and heighten positive potential” (Cooperrider and Whitney 1999, pg. 5).

Open Space Technology

“Open Space Technology is one way to enable all kinds of people, in any kind of organization, to create inspired meetings and events…In Open Space meetings, events and organizations, participants create and manage their own agenda of parallel working sessions around a central theme of strategic importance” (Herman 2003).

Citizens’ Jury Citizens’ Jury is a process that mimics a judicial model to engage ‘expert witness’ and allow a random sample of the population to deliberate over complex issues. The issues considered in citizens’ juries can range from planning disputes to deliberating about new ways to help deliver rehabilitation to drugs offenders. An attempt is made to select a representative section of the public to participate (Jefferson Centre 2002).


146

Methodology Description Participatory diagramming

Participatory diagramming is a method of including people in analysing various aspects of community life using large diagrams, often with locally available materials such as string and rocks. There are several models, such as ranking matrices and seasonal calendars, which have been developed largely in rural development work, and have since been extended to research in urban areas.

Participatory/ Rapid Rural Appraisal

PRA/RRA is “a family of approaches and methods to enable rural people to share, enhance and analyze their knowledge of life and conditions, to plan and to act” (Chambers 1994, pg. 953).

Action/ Participatory Research

Action research involves direct intervention in a particular context or situation as part of the research process. Much action research has taken place in educational and health settings, with new ideas being tried as part of a ‘real world’ trial. Participatory Research is “a form of action research which empahsizes the participation of research subjects” (Pain and Francis 2003, pg. 47). This participation can include deciding on the problem to be addressed, appropriate methodologies, gathering data and participation in the analysis of data.

Roundtables and workshops

Informal meetings that include interactive group work. Can be facilitated or not, these are generic techniques which are often used to work out particular issues arising from participation. Roundtables may convene over a longer time period to develop ideas on a theme from a range of perspectives.

Participatory Theatre and Arts

This approach uses physical movement and creativity to explore people’s own experience. This works particularly well with people who are alienated by more formal or verbal participation methods. Projects often start with workshops for a specific group of people, and may go on to involve the public through events in a range of settings (Lewis, J. and Walker 1999, pg. 40).

Systems Methodologies Soft Systems Methodologies

This is a methodology of applied systems thinking, which works with complex problems. It is a formal tool for diagramming actors’ concepts and the interaction of parts of a system. The methodology is based on the assumption that is possible to make models of complex reality, and that though the models are abstract, they can be turned into physical artefacts that can then be checked against reality. Whilst there have been many variations of ways of applying Soft Systems Methodologies, a set of constituent rules has been published, which gives general principles that should be followed for a process to be called a Soft Systems Methodology (Naughton 1977).

Holistic Landscape Ecology

“Landscape ecology is the study of spatial variation in landscapes at a variety of scales. It includes the biophysical and societal causes and consequences of landscape heterogeneity. Above all, it is broadly interdisciplinary” (International Association of Landscape Ecologists 2003, section Landscape ecology: what is it?, para. 1).

Syntegration® Developed by Stafford Beer as a means of “containing and connecting the requisite variety required for a group of people to match its response to the complexity of the environment” (Leonard 2003, pg. 1). The main focus of this method is on how to engage a number of different stakeholders in fruitful discussion and integration of a wide range of ideas.

Environmental Management River basin planning/ ICM

Integrated Catchment Management (ICM) is the “integration of land and water management” (Gardiner 1996) and as such offers a mechanism for applying such an approach. ICM was formalised in the late 80’s, and is seen by some planners as “a natural step from EIA and SEA in the evolution of ecological management” (Flournoy 1995, pg. 85).

EIA/SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment is “a systematic process for evaluating the environmental consequences of proposed policy, programmes or plan initiatives in order to ensure they are fully included and appropriately addressed at the earliest suitable stage of the decision making process” (von Seht 1999, pg. 1). It has developed from the process of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), assessment at the site level of scale. These methodologies differ from many of the others described in


147

Methodology Description this table, as there is now a legal requirement for EIA in more than 100 countries, (Barker and Wood 1999) and the SEA Directive has now been adopted (European Commission 2001a).

Multi-criteria Assessment

Multi-criteria Assessment takes account of a range of variables. Attempts to provide a detailed exploration of different criteria for decision making, and encourage dialogue about weighting and prioritisation of criteria. Used in Decision Support Systems, often with graphic displays of weighting.

Sustainability Planning The Natural Step The Natural Step provides a framework for long-term ‘planning for sustainability’. As a

tool it reduces confusion, cutting through seemingly conflicting information in the sustainability debate. It can be used as a compass for navigating step-by-step towards long-term economic and ecological sustainability.

Holistic Management®

Holistic Management is an integrated planning process which aims to change the way that decisions are made, so that plans are tested against a clear vision of a desired future state, which has been created with an understanding of social, ecological and economic sustainability.

Quality of Life Capital

“The Quality of Life Capital approach is a tool for identifying what matters and why, so that the consequences (both good and bad) of plans, development proposals and management options on quality of life can be better taken into account by practitioners and decision takers” (Quality of Life Capital Website 2003).

Sustainable Regional Planning

A planning process that grew from analysing patterns of natural resources in the landscape to determine the most appropriate areas for human development. The methodology has evolved into a process for planning which emphasises local and natural values, and which integrates a large amount of information about an area into a form useful for planning through the use of maps and creation of large-scale spatial plans.

Bioregional Planning “Bioregionalism offers an alternative to the arbitrary nature of political divisions and boundaries. It encourages a sane use of local resources, proper management of wildlife and the development of healthy, co- operating communities. A bioregion is a division of land based on geographical, cultural and historical factors. Factors which can be taken into account include: watershed and water supply; landforms and soil types; vegetation types; and cultural factors, such as regional dialects and different customs; or shared concepts of belonging to an area and group of people. A bioregional ethic involves increased regional and local self- sufficiency” (Tippett, J. 1994, pg. 14)

Ecological Design Permaculture© Permaculture is a design method based on ecological principles. The focus is on the

creation of high quality, sustainable human habitats. It can be applied at many levels of scale, from garden and landscape design to site planning, the integration of agriculture and forestry and urban/rural design.

Ecological Design Ecological design is a process of thinking about future options for a particular system (e.g. product or process, buildings, community, landscape area, geographical or organisational integration of these sectors) from the perspective of long-term sustainability, which is based on principles derived from natural systems.

Table 5-3 clarifies the status of these methodologies. As discussed above, several of

these methodologies could be seen as specific examples of a generic category, whilst

others are proprietary. Some require accreditation, some use specific materials and

several have dedicated organisations.


148

Table 5-3 Comparison of Methodologies – Status of Process

Main Focus Participatory Planning Process Dialogue Process Systems Methodology

Environmental Management

Sustainability Planning Eco-logical Design

Methodology Component

Planning for Real®

Enquiry by Design

Com

munity

Envisioning

Action Planning

Com

munity Plan-

nin g/Architecture

Parish/Com

munity

Mapping

Future Search

Appreciative inquiry

Open Space

Technology

Citizens’ Jury

Participatory diagram

ming

Participatory/Rapid

Rural A

ppraisal

Action/Participatory

Research

Roundtables and

workshops

Participatory Theatreand A

rts

Soft Systems

Methodology

Holistic Landscape

Ecology

Syntegration®

River basin

planning/ICM

EIA/SEA

Multi-criteria

Assessm

ent

The Natural Step

Holistic M

anagement®

Quality of Life C

apital

Sustainable Regional

Plannin g

Bioregional Planning

Permaculture©

Ecological design

Has accredited training/ certification of process

Uses specific tools and materials

Has a dedicated organisation

Legend has this component not applicable, or no

relationship

may have component specifically does not have this component x


149

5.3 The DesignWays Approach SUNstainable DesignWays33 is a toolkit developed by the author for enabling

community and stakeholder participation in ecological planning (see Table 5-4 below).

Large, colourful Mind Maps provide a transferable structure to coordinate the hands-on

process. Participants use creative thinking tools to develop new options. It is built on a

framework for understanding sustainability, and combines aspects of several

methodologies, including ecological design and holistic management. The underlying

‘systems thinking’ approach helps to integrate these different aspects.

Its interactive tools and creative methods aim to deliver dialogue that is animated and

engaging. The process was designed to help participants take a holistic view that

enhances local assets. The expected results are twofold:

• viable plans that reflect resident and stakeholder aspirations and the distinctive

character of an area,

• and capacity building, such that participants learn skills of communication and

ecological design.

DesignWays has been developed into an Open College Network accredited course34,

including the first stages of progression through a train-the-trainers programme.

Table 5-4 Status of Process – DesignWays

SUNstainable DesignWays Has accredited training/ certification of process

Uses specific tools and materials

Has a dedicated organisation (but not yet officially registered)

Insights from several of the participatory and sustainability methodologies reviewed in

this chapter have informed the development of DesignWays. The author made a

33 Holocene Design (Joanne Tippett and Buddy Williams) coined the term ‘SUNstainability’ because the term 'Sustainability' is often used without reference to ecology and the vitality of the biosphere. SUNstainable implies the capacity to continue within the sun-driven cycle of ecology, without which there would be no economy or society. 34 Accredited through the Merseyside Open College Network, Learning Programme Title: SUNstainable DesignWays – Skills and Practice.


150

conscious attempt to build on and learn from her experience in the field in developing

this process (described in the preface to this thesis). The influences of different

methodologies on the development of DesignWays are summarised below in Table 5-5.

Table 5-5 Influence of Other Participatory Methodologies on DesignWays

Methodology DesignWays Participatory Planning Processes Planning for Real® was influenced by Enquiry by Design has similarities with Community Envisioning has similarities with Action Planning has similarities with Community Planning/ Architecture has similarities with Parish/ Community Mapping incorporates aspects of Dialogue Process Future Search has similarities with Appreciative Inquiry has similarities with Open Space Technology Citizens’ Jury Participatory diagramming was influenced by Participatory/ Rapid Rural Appraisal was influenced by Action/ Participatory Research Roundtables and workshops Participatory Theatre and Arts was influenced by Systems Methodology Soft Systems Methodologies was influenced by Holistic Landscape Ecology incorporates aspects of Syntegration® Environmental Management River basin planning/ ICM was influenced by EIA/SEA Multi-criteria Assessment was influenced by Sustainability Planning The Natural Step incorporates aspects of Holistic Management® incorporates aspects of Quality of Life Capital has similarities with Sustainable Regional Planning was influenced by Bioregional Planning was influenced by Ecological Design Permaculture© incorporates aspects of Ecological Design incorporates aspects of


151

5.4 Comparison of DesignWays and other Methodologies In the literature review some papers commenting on the lack of systematic evaluation of

the effectiveness of participatory methodologies were discovered (e.g. InterAct 2001;

Warburton 2002), but none containing a systematic review of a range of methodologies.

In a survey into participation in local authorities by the DETR, the researchers

commented, “Most local authorities accept the principle of 'fitness for purpose' - the value of using different methods to work on different

issues and with different citizen groups”. They went on to say that in

practice the Authorities “adopt ad hoc approaches to the selection of public

participation methods” (de Montfort University and The University of Strathclyde).

The guide PARTICIPATION WORKS! includes descriptions and brief case studies of

several different methodologies, including information on general resource

requirements. It suggests that readers should develop their own criteria for choosing

methodologies, and provides some information to help readers to make that choice. The

guide reminds readers “that participation, and choosing participatory

techniques, is not a science” (Lewis, J. and Walker 1999, pg. 5). The following

review offers a starting point for characterising different methodologies. In the absence

of a systematic evaluation of many of the methodologies, such as carried out for ‘Future

Search’ by Oels (2002), much of this information has been derived from discussion with

practitioners, from printed resources, and websites of the organisations. A review of

research conducted into the different methodologies has provided additional information

(sources summarised in Appendix Six - Overview of Participatory Methodologies).

Information has also been incorporated into these tables from several practitioners and

academics that provided comments on these tables35.

35Many thanks to the following for providing comments:

• Matthew Wilkinson (Sustainability Policy Officer, NWRA); • Dr. Anna Carr (School of Human Sciences, University of Surrey); • Dr. Emma Griffiths; (Principal Street Environment Manager, Manchester City Council); • Angus Soutar (Permaculture Designer, participant in LGMB Consensus Building pilots of 1996/97); • El-Moustafa Eweda, (Ph.D. researcher, School of Planning, University of Manchester); • Perry Walker (New Economics Foundation); • Dr. Stephen Martin (Institute of Environmental Scientists); • and Nuala Murphy (Research Assistant, CURE).


152

There is no easy way to categorise or compare participatory methodologies. This

analysis is not intended as an evaluation of the effectiveness of the methodologies, but

rather as an exploration of their different components. In this research these components

are explored through an in-depth evaluation of an application of the DesignWays

methodology. It would be useful to explore these components in a comparative

evaluation of the effectiveness and impacts of these different methodologies. Such an

in-depth evaluation of the different methodologies, however, is beyond the scope of this

research.

5.4.1 Attributes and Components Used in Review There are five essential attributes of DesignWays:

1. educational framework of sustainability;

2. ecological design process;

3. creative involvement of stakeholders in planning process;

4. scaleable design language to link different geographic levels of scale;.

5. and underlying framework of systems thinking.

The following review is structured around these five attributes. The theoretical basis of

each of the attributes is explored, followed by a critical review. A table comparing the

methodologies supplements the description of participatory methodologies above. These

tables show several possible components that could express the attributes. The

components used to compare methodologies in this review were derived from the

theoretical underpinnings of the DesignWays methodology, the practical expression of

this theory, and a broad literature search.

This review is not meant as a normative description of ‘goodness’ of these different

aspects of participatory methodologies. It is not necessarily ‘good’ to have, for example,

an educational framework of sustainability, to require a trained facilitator, or to have a

structured design process. Whether or not to include these components is a choice of

approach, and there are positive and negative aspects of many of the components. This

reviews offers a framework to help understand differences between the approaches. This

research includes a consideration of the benefits of these components as they are used in


153

the DesignWays approach, analysed through the lens of participants’ experience in

Chapter 7.

Many of the components may or may not be exhibited in a particular methodology,

depending on how the methodology is applied. Many of these components are highly

variable depending also on the context of application, e.g. the institutional and

programmatic variables which can impact the application of the methodology. These

variables account for many of the grey boxes in the tables below.

5.5 Educational framework of sustainability Forum for the Future's definition of sustainable development is "A dynamic process which enables all people to realise their potential and improve their

quality of life in ways which simultaneously protect and enhance the

Earth's life support systems" (Forum for the Future 2002).

Whilst the goal of sustainable development is one with wide acceptance, an

understanding of how to apply sustainability in practice is not as easy to come by. The

concept is sometimes seen as ambiguous and sometimes even meaningless. For

example, in a paper about the future of the planning system and its ability to deliver

sustainable development, Rydin (2003, pg. 2) says,

“Policy makers and politicians have found it easier and

politically more prudent to rely on the inherent

ambiguities of the concept rather than risk finding

themselves tied to a clear and precise definition”.

Forman (1998) suggests that while sustainable development may be more of a process

than an end point, indeed that it may be impossible to achieve, it is possible to define a

desired trajectory. In order to operationalise the concept, it is important to more clearly

define what we are trying to achieve. Solutions developed within a framework of clear

sustainability principles are less likely to have counterproductive effects in the long run.

Several researchers in the field of water management have suggested that participatory

planning in complex situations requires that principles of sustainability are agreed upon

at the beginning of the process, and that they are subsequently used as criteria in

decision making (e.g. Gardiner 1996; Rijsberman and van de Ven 2000). The Natural

Step (TNS) provides such a framework.


154

5.5.1 The Natural Step The Natural Step (TNS) is a framework of sustainability criteria built on basic scientific

principles (Case Study 5-1 and Figure 5-2). These have been agreed as both valid and

useful in extensive rounds of dialogue amongst leading scientists and practitioners in

Sweden, and subsequently in many of the countries in which TNS has been licensed

(e.g. USA, UK) (Nattrass and Altomare 1999; Robert 2000; Wingspread 1997).

DesignWays uses the framework of TNS as an educational tool and in its decision

making process.

Case Study 5-1 Basic Science Principles – The Natural Step

1. Matter and energy do not appear or disappear (1st law of thermodynamics & law of

conservation of mass).

2. Matter and energy tend to disperse (2nd law of thermodynamics).

3. Biological and economic value (quality) lies in the concentration and structure of

matter.

4. Sun driven processes are essentially the only net producers of concentration and

matter (photosynthesis).

Figure 5-2 TNS Basic Science Principles (diagrams developed by the author)

The TNS framework aims to cut through confusion in the sustainability debate by

defining the condition of sustainability in broad terms. It achieves this by describing the

functioning of the Earth’s bio-geo-chemical cycles in systems principles. It then

logically works out how society is acting in systematically unsustainable ways (Case

Study 5-2 and Figure 5-3). It takes “natural states as desired end-points”

(Upham 2000b, pg. 183). Taking this as a starting point for communication about

possible directions, it is possible to understand what needs to change in order for

behaviour to be sustainable in the long run (Holmberg 1998). The logic of sustainability


155

rests in part on the concept of our reliance on the exergy (negative entropy) produced by

ecosystems, upon which all human activity is reliant. This point was clarified in

relationship to the economy by Georgescu-Roegen (1975) and emphasised by Daly,

(2002, pg. 108) in an address to the World Bank, “value cannot be added to nothing. Neither can it be added to ashes, dust, rust, and the

dissipated heat energy in the oceans and atmosphere”.

Carpenter (1995, pg. 177) suggests “it's possible for us to be more accurate

about our unsustainability than our sustainability”. The scientific

principles developed in extensive rounds of dialogue in TNS were elaborated into a

framework for sustainability at the level of the entire Earth, the largest scale system

directly influenced by human actions.

Case Study 5-2 System Conditions of Sustainability - The Natural Step

In a sustainable society, nature is NOT subject to systematically increasing:

1. concentrations of substances extracted from the earth's crust;

2. concentrations of substances produced by society;

3. degradation by physical means;

and, in that society ...

4... human needs are met worldwide.

TNS (see http://www.naturalstep.org.uk for updates)

These principles describe the minimum that needs to be achieved in order to realise a

sustainable ‘society-in-nature’ system. They do not provide a detailed explanation of the

necessary steps to achieve that state, but they do provide a useful guideline to

understand the major issues that need to be addressed in order to achieve sustainability.


156

Figure 5-3 Four System Conditions of The Natural Step (diagrams developed by the author)

In TNS, the metaphor of a funnel is used to describe the effects of violating these

system conditions (Figure 5-4). The closing walls of the funnel represent a loss in

quality and capacity of the Earth’s support systems, and its ability to meet human needs.


157

Figure 5-4 The walls of the funnel

The system conditions can be used to develop a description of sustainability, seen as

opening up the walls of the funnel and increasing options for the future (Figure 5-5).

Figure 5-5 Opening the walls of the funnel

An important aspect of the TNS framework is that it can be used to develop a shared

mental model, one which facilitates dialogue through building on common

understanding about sustainability (Robert 1991). Discussing a visioning process to

reach “a shared vision of a sustainable and desirable USA in 2100”, Farley

and Constanza (2002, pg. 246) state:


158

“What is lacking is a clear unified vision of what

sustainable development entails. In short, without a

coherent, relatively detailed, shared vision of what a

sustainable society would look like, economists (and other

policy-oriented scientists) lack the clearly defined ends

required to guide their efforts”.

Much of the work on developing non-monetary measures and concepts of sustainability

has focused on ways of measuring and assessing the state of the environment, or

‘environmental quality indicators’, as opposed to the ‘relations between

society and the ecosystems’ (Azar, Holmberg and Lindgren 1995. pg. 2). These

tend to focus attention late in the causal chain, and can be slow to give warning signals

about damage to the environment, as there are often time delays between emissions and

effects. Once the effects can be measured, the damage has already been done.

Using the TNS system conditions focuses attention on the societal activities that cause

environmental damage (Azar, Holmberg and Lindgren 1995). As such, they can assist in

moving plans beyond ‘end of pipe solutions’, which deal with the symptoms of the

problems, rather than changing the processes and actions that cause pollution in the first

place. Such a change implies a need to change the way we make decisions, such that

options are tested against the question: ‘Is this likely to be sustainable in the long run?’.

There are numerous examples of TNS being used as a pedagogic and strategic planning

tool in companies such as Tarmac, BP Air, Wessex Water, Electrolux, Ikea, Scandic

Hotels, McDonalds Sweden, Interface and Collins Pine (e.g. Holliday, Schmidheiny and

Watts 2002; Martin, Stephen et al. 1999; Nattrass and Altomare 1999). A dialogue

process using the TNS framework has been organised amongst different stakeholders in

fields as diverse as Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems and the PVC industry, with the

aim to find areas of consensus as a common platform for action (e.g. Everard,

Monaghan and Ray 2000; Everard and Street 2001).

By conceiving of a picture of sustainability as a goal in the future, Robert (1997, pg. 4)

suggests that it is possible to overcome many of the limitations of other models of

sustainability, which start with today’s conditions and circumstances. These

disadvantages include the possibility of investing in “sub–optimised measures, or blind alleys that do not lead to the significant environmental

improvements possible by taking into account a larger picture of what a


159

sustainable society could look like”. Through a process of backcasting36, a tool

used in the TNS framework, it is possible to see if there are solutions to problems

outside the trends of today, such that thinking is not limited to what appears to be

realistic given today’s issues and concerns (Robert et al. 2002).

5.5.2 Critique of The Natural Step model There is an implicit emphasis in the TNS framework on the precautionary principle,

which is considered by some practitioners to be too conservative. Due to the aim of

promoting principles with a broad base of consensus, TNS deliberately refrains from

making judgements of damage thresholds or critical concentrations, which are open to

interpretation, hard to predict, or likely to be contentious. Instead, they use a

“criterion of systematic progression or worsening”, which are based on rate

corollaries, contrasting anthropogenic37 rates of dispersion of matter with natural flows

and break down of matter. These are difficult to measure accurately and there is no

agreed-upon methodology for converting global flows into measures for local areas

(Upham 2000a, pg. 447).

Upham’s (2000a, pg. 451) assertion that “failure to explicitly deal with

toxicity is a serious shortcoming of TNS” is a criticism that only holds when

TNS is used in isolation from indicators relevant to local and sectoral conditions and

decision making criteria. The development of such criteria is an essential component of

implementing TNS in a management or design process. TNS explicitly deals with

global trends that are likely to cause unsustainable conditions, and recognises that there

may be other, local problems caused by emissions that would not necessarily constitute

a long-term risk to global sustainability, but have significant local impacts. In particular,

any analysis of emissions should be linked to likely effects on human health, and to an

understanding of the concept of critical load and level in local ecosystems, so that the 36 The process of backcasting creates an image of a desirable future, from which a process of development can be worked out to achieve the future envisioned state. It focuses on how to achieve a desirable future state, and as such is a normative tool, which involves working backwards from the imagined point in the future to the current situation and working out how the desirable future can be attained. Backcasting is a suitable methodology for situations when (adapted from Dreborg 1996):

• the problems under study are complex; • there is a need for a major change; • dominant trends are part of the problem; • the problem consists of or is affected by externalities, or factors with which the market cannot

adequately deal; • there is a long enough time horizon to allow for deliberate choice.

37 Anthropogenic – induced by the action of humans.


160

vulnerability of receptors is factored into any decision making on a project level

(O'Riordan and Jordan 2000).

The combination of the use of water quality standards, the setting of emission limits and

the monitoring of ‘ecological status’ in the WFD (Kampas, Edwards and Ferrier 2002)

reflects the concern that the measurement of single aspects of environmental quality

failed to capture overall environmental quality, and often failed to identify “casual

linkages or drivers of ecosystem function or dysfunction” (Tait et al.

2000). Use of the TNS system conditions, in combination with landscape ecology and

local scientific investigation, can help to clarify those drivers and causes.

Upham (2000a, pg. 449) suggests that a strict adherence to TNS conditions would make

it difficult for less industrialised regions to develop ‘expanded physical economies’.

He also mentions in his article that lithospheric materials and synthetic substances

already in use and present on the Earth’s surface should be “repeatedly circulated

and their access more equally distributed”. In Europe, an area where the

development of such physical economies has created many of the water quality

problems that the WFD aims to address, the challenge is to learn how to redesign our

physical infrastructure and resources flows such that we are able to maintain healthy

ecosystems. This knowledge could prove invaluable in less industrialised regions,

enabling ‘leapfrogging’ over the ‘Western’ route of development to one that does not

create such a legacy of environmental problems.

Upham (2000a, pg. 449) suggests that any decisions as to what level accumulation of

materials may be considered to be appropriate in human society are in themselves value

judgements, which “complicates the scientific pretensions of TNS”. The fact

that applying TNS principles involves value judgements, and decision making using the

tool does have to deal with the situation as it is today, does not necessarily invalidate it

as a model for ‘planning for sustainability’. Cortner (2000) suggests that value

judgements are an inevitable part of any attempt to deal with the interplay of social and

technical issues. O'Riordan (1998) suggests that value judgements are part of the

scientific process and that what is deemed as fact is often decided by consensus. In a

discussion of land use planning, Owens and Cowell (2002) stress that the application of

sustainability principles inherently involves moral judgements.


161

The concept of searching for areas of consensus amongst the research community has

been gaining wider acceptance in the discourse following a post-Kuhn and post-modern

questioning of the possibility of an objective scientific viewpoint (e.g. Hammersley

1990; Smith and Deemer 2000). As discussed above, the formation of the scientific

principles that underpin the system conditions underwent an extensive peer review

process38.

Another major criticism of TNS has been that the fourth system condition, which deals

with the concept of human needs, is not a scientific principle, and that it implies value

judgments as to what constitutes a ‘fair’ use of resources. Such a view is supported by

many critiques of the current trajectory of ‘development’, which often serves to make

the rich richer, and erodes local control over resources and technology, such that local

food security and employment is threatened, with the poorest the most affected by any

negative consequences (e.g. Lappe and Collins 1986; Shiva 1989).

Much discussion has centred on exactly what human needs are amongst TNS

practitioners. Manfred Max-Neef is a Chilean economist and ‘development’ expert, who

has elaborated a system of human needs39 (Max-Neef 1991a, b) (Figure 5-6). Integrating

this system into the pedagogy of TNS has moved this discussion into a more fruitful and

creative avenue. This integration was discussed by Holmberg and Robert at the May

1998 Natural Step conference in Chicago, and is further discussed in a recent article on

backcasting and TNS (Holmberg 1998).

38 This has been repeated in several countries, for example, at the Wingspread conference in Racine, Wisconsin, more than twenty scientists, including Nobel Prize winners, signed a declaration: “ We believe that the application of The Natural Step’s four system conditions is a valid approach for addressing [environmental] problems, and is especially useful for organising information regarding sustainability” (Wingspread 1997). 39 Max-Neef’s system of human needs suggests that there are nine fundamental needs, which remain the same in different cultures (Max-Neef 1991b). The way cultures in different times and places satisfy these needs changes, rather than the needs themselves. In this analysis economic development is seen as a satisfier of more fundamental needs, not a need in and of itself. The form of economic development can inhibit the meeting of other needs. Rydin reminds readers that the background of the concept of sustainable development lay in alleviating poverty, and led to the idea of “a new kind of economic development, one that allows all groups within society to benefit from economic activity (whilst also taking ecological systems into account)” (Rydin 2003, pg. 3). As in TNS, Max-Neef’s definition of human needs is seen as an inter-related system, if one of them is not met, there will be pathologies in the system. After subsistence (which includes sufficient food, water and shelter, and is a prerequisite for the other needs to be met) these needs are non-hierarchical, and all are essential.


162

Figure 5-6 Max-Neef's System of Human Needs (diagram developed by the author)

The use of TNS in participatory planning is discussed in more depth in Tippett (2004b).

Table 5-6 shows the relationship between participatory methodologies and the use of an

educational framework of sustainability.


163

Table 5-6 Comparison of Methodologies - Educational framework of sustainability





Planning for Real®

Enquiry by Design

Com

munity

Envisioning

Action Planning

Com

munity Plan-

nin g/Architecture

Parish/Com

munity

Mapping

Future Search A

ppreciative inquiry

Open Space

Technology

Citizens’ Jury


ming

Participatory/Rapid

Rural A

ppraisal


Research

Roundtables and

workshops


rts

Soft Systems

Methodology

Holistic Landscape

Ecolo gy

Syntegration®

River basin

planning/ICM

EIA/SEA

Multi-criteria

Assessm

ent

The Natural Step

Holistic

Mana gem

ent®

Quality of Life

Capital


Planning


Permaculture©

Ecological design

Explicit focus on sustainability

Uses sustainability criteria in decision making

Focus on social capital Focus on environmental integrity

Focus on economic vitality


relationship

may have component, depends how applied

specifically does not have this component x


164

5.5.3 Comparison of Methodologies - Educational framework of sustainability

Whilst not all of the methodologies in the above table have an explicit focus on

sustainability, it can be seen that all of these methodologies, apart from roundtables,

Syntegration and multi-criteria analysis, do have an explicit focus on social capital.

Attention to maintaining social capital is implicit in sustainability planning and its

development is a goal of most participatory methodologies.

Not all sustainability planning tools are necessarily participatory, or have a focus on the

process of participation at their core. The concept of sustainable development has,

however, included the need for enhanced participation in decision making from its

beginning. The Brundtland Commission made the link between sustainable

development and increased participation:

“The law alone cannot enforce the common interest. It

principally needs community knowledge and support, which

entails greater public participation in the decisions which

affect the environment” (World Commission on Environment

and Development 1987).

5.5.3.1 DesignWays and an educational framework of sustainability

The use of a clearly understood, common framework of sustainability is an important

aspect of the DesignWays process. In its early development this was derived from

ecological design principles. These provided a good general model of what to aim for,

but did not provide a rigorous set of principles against which to test options. After

several years of development, a framework of sustainability based on TNS was added to

the DesignWays model. TNS was chosen for several reasons:

• it is based on scientific consensus;

• it offers clear principles for defining the state of sustainability;

• it provides a useful tool for testing whether or not a process or decision is, or is not,

tending towards sustainability;

• it is a transferable tool;


165

• it has been developed to promote dialogue and understanding of the underlying

principles of sustainability;

• and its underlying rationale is based in systems thinking.

Of the participatory planning methodologies, DesignWays and ‘Enquiry by Design’

both include education about different sustainability options, to help broaden

participants’ understanding of what is possible. Many of the other participatory planning

methodologies in the table above aim towards a socially and ecologically sustainable

outcome in general terms, without necessarily having an implicit focus on sustainability.

The sustainability and environmental management methodologies above tend to have a

higher emphasis on education about sustainability. EIA, River basin planning/ICM and

Multi-criteria assessment tend to have more of a focus on the technical aspects of

monitoring, data collection and analysis than the other techniques. These form an

essential complement to participatory processes such as DesignWays.

Table 5-7 introduces the methods used in DesignWays to deliver the components used

to compare different methodologies above. These are described in more detail in

Chapters 6 and 7.


166

Table 5-7 Methods to express 'Educational framework of sustainability’

DesignWays Attribute 1 Educational framework of sustainability Component DesignWays Methods

Explicit focus on sustainability

• includes education about sustainability • process implicitly encourages discussion about how the

participants’ ideas relate to principles of sustainability

Uses sustainability criteria in decision making

• uses system conditions of The Natural Step throughout design process

• developed a technique for making this use visible in the decision making process

Focus on social capital

• encourages thinking of assets and future possibilities to enhance social capital by including a template dedicated to social capital as part of its organising structure

• uses Max-Neef’s system of human needs as a stimulus for dialogue in goal setting

• design process encourages social learning between different stakeholders and community members

Focus on environmental integrity

• ecological design process and tools help participants to apply the principles of TNS to plans

• encourages thinking of assets and future possibilities to enhance ecological integrity by including templates dedicated to landscapes and the built environment as part of its organising structure

Focus on economic vitality

• encourages thinking of assets and future possibilities to enhance economic vitality and sustainability by including a template dedicated to economics as part of its organising structure

• includes workshops designed to be of use to businesses to encourage input from business participants

5.6 Ecological design process “Vision, when widely shared and firmly kept in sight,

brings into being new systems” (Meadows, Meadows and

Randers 1992, pg. 224, emphasis in original).

Design is the creative process of developing new ideas and possibilities and integrating

them within the context of a particular organisation, place and time. It is the active

process of engaging with the environment and others to achieve desired outcomes.

Design can be seen as a hinge between the future, present and past and between goals,

vision and context. It involves “conceiving and shaping complex systems” (Lyle

1994, pg. ix).

Ecological design is a process in which societal forms of production, housing and

infrastructure are integrated into the landscape with minimal environmental impacts

(e.g. Van der Ryn and Cowan 1995). In the process participants are encouraged to step

outside of the boundaries of their disciplines, and to view projects over a long time


167

scale. In an audit of assessment of EIAs of project planning in the UK, Wood, Dipper et

al (Wood, C., Dipper and Jones 2000) found that many EIAs “overlook construction

and decommissioning phase impacts, which can often be adverse”. Design

on a ‘life cycle basis’ requires consideration of the implications of the project over

its total time span (Selman and Wragg 1999). This helps to encourage what Brand

(2000, pg. 2) terms a “balancing corrective to [society’s] short-sightedness … that encourages the long view and the taking of long-term

responsibility”40.

Ecological design has a long history of precedents. In the UK in the late nineteenth

century, John Ruskin and William Morris questioned the developing industrial model of

production and explored instead how to learn from ‘nature’ in design. Ebenezer Howard

developed this work into the idea of the Garden City (1850 – 1928), exemplified by

Letchworth and Welwyn Gardens (Farmer 1996). The Town and Country Planning

Association (TCPA) was developed to further these ideas.

McHarg (1992) promoted the idea of designing with nature, and designing within the

context of landform, watersheds and vegetation of an area. He set out a comprehensive

approach to analysing ecological and cultural characteristics of landscapes, in order to

determine the best areas for development for particular purposes. At the University of

Wisconsin Lewis (1996) has developed a regional design process for sustainability, and

advocates the development of ‘Sustainable Design Academies’, which would offer both

a framework, and a location, for interdisciplinary planning on a regional scale.

NGO’s, such as Urban Ecology and The New Urbanism Congress, are promoting

‘planning for sustainability’ concepts and practices. This has been given added impetus

from the current political discussion of ‘Smart Growth’ to counter suburban sprawl in

the development of the landscape in the USA. Mollison and Holmgren developed

permaculture, an early form of ecological design, in the 70’s in Australia. It was

originally conceived as an approach for applying ecological principles to productive

land management, and has been developed into a holistic system for designing human

landscapes and settlements (Holmgren 2003). Permaculture is now promoted and taught

by an internationally recognized institution (Mollison 1990). 40 The Long Now Foundation, which Brand co-chairs, is developing several projects to help encourage long-term, creative thinking about the future, thinking into ‘deep time’, over a period of 10,000 years, considered to be suitable as this is roughly the time span since the last Ice Age, in which humans have developed agriculture and major civilisations (www.longnow.org/). Such an effort to expand time horizons in thought was behind the author and partner’s decision to name their company Holocene, the current geological epoch.


168

Fuller (1969) was an early advocate of applying ecological principles to human

settlements on ‘Spaceship Earth’, and the influential design thinker Papanek (1995)

has extended his work on design for human needs to include what he calls the ‘Green

Imperative’. The philosophical roots of much of the recent work on appropriate

technology and green design stems from two influential thinkers, Schumacher (1973),

with his focus on ‘Small is Beautiful’; and Illich (1987), with his focus on the role

that technology plays in structuring social interaction, power relations and learning.

The principles of ecological design can be applied in three main areas:

1. human infrastructure and resource flows;

2. productive landscape management and agricultural areas;

3. and ecological restoration and land use management.

The process of ecological design should look at all three aspects within a geographical

area.

5.6.1 Critique of ecological design Criticisms of the concept of ecologically informed solutions fall into two categories, the

practical and the theoretical.

On the practical level, ecological design is difficult to implement, requiring different

skills and competencies, both in design and construction, than those for common

practices. It is not clear how an ecological design approach fits in with existing policy

and procedures. There are high up front costs from the time spent in design. This is the

case especially in strategic and large-scale plans, and where there is a high degree of

stakeholder involvement. These costs may be mitigated by efficiency gains through

streamlining of later projects (e.g. Bass and Herson 2000; Brooke 2000; Verheem

2000).

On a more fundamental level lies the question, ‘Do we really know that an ecologically

informed design is actually more sustainable than another alternative?’. Several

researchers caution about the difficulty of ‘measuring’ or assessing relative ecological

sustainability of options, emphasising uncertainty in any scientific endeavour to

understand ecosystems (e.g. Carpenter 1995; George 1999).


169

The question ‘How do we know that the principles are scientifically based?’ can be

asked of ecological design principles. It could be said that these principles cannot be

scientifically proven. They originate from theoretical understanding of ecology,

observation of ecosystems, and the incorporation of traditional ecological knowledge.

The incorporation of the framework of TNS into the decision making process provides a

tool for assessing the outcomes of application of the principles. The approach taken to

such uncertainty in DesignWays is discussed in Section 5.9.1 ‘Critique of systems

thinking’ on pg. 193.

There are thinkers who suggest that design aimed at reducing damage to ecosystems is

not necessary. This is termed a ‘cornucopia’ view of nature, in which human needs will

invariably be supplied by natural systems. The approach of ‘technological optimism’

suggests that human ingenuity will always be able to solve problems created by

technology, so there is no need to limit the application of technology in consideration of

ecosystems (e.g. the debate between Norman Myers, a well known environmentalist,

and Julian Simon, an economist and outspoken critic of environmentalism, in Myers,

Myers and Simon 1994). Botkin (1990) discusses the recent revision of the theory of

climax ecosystems to a more dynamic view of change in ecosystems. He contends that

the historical role of humans in maintaining ecosystems implies that ecosystems are

inherently capable of adapting to human changes. He suggests this means that

ecosystems will be able to adapt from human induced changes, without the need for us

to be overly concerned about our effects on those systems.

Table 5-8 shows the relationship between participatory methodologies and the use of an

ecological design process.


170

Table 5-8 Comparison of Methodologies - Ecological design process



Sustainability Planning Eco- Design


Planning for Real®

Enquiry by Design

Com

munity

Envisioning

Action Planning

Com

munity Plan-

ning/Architecture

Parish/Com

munity

Mapping

Future Search

Appreciative inquiry

Open Space

Technology

Citizens’ Jury


ming

Participatory/Rapid

Rural A

ppraisal


Research

Roundtables and

workshops

Participatory Theatre and A

rts

Soft Systems

Methodolo gy

Holistic Landscape

Ecology

Syntegration®

River basin

planning/ICM

EIA/SEA

Multi-criteria

Assessm

ent The N

atural Step

Holistic M

anagement®

Quality of Life C

apital


Plannin g


Permaculture©

Ecological design

Use of creative thinking tools

Focus on maximizing existing assets

Tools to apply eco-design principles

Involving spatial design/ analysis

Holistic perspective - human & ecological

Focus on underlying processes & patterns

Structured design process

x Legend has this component not applicable, or no

relationship




171

5.6.2 Comparison of Methodologies - Ecological design process As can be seen from the table above, ecological design, and some of the sustainability

planning methodologies, have a high concentration of the components of an ecological

design process as set out in this table, although none of these necessarily has a

structured design process. As the participatory planning methodologies focus on spatial

planning and design, they also use some of these principles and processes, but do not

include techniques for analysing resource flows or ecological processes. The dialogue

processes can be used to apply ecological design principles, but this is not their main

focus.

5.6.2.1 DesignWays ecological design process

Several practitioners and researchers have developed concepts and principles of design

from the point of view of landscape ecology (Forman 1998; Lewis, P. H. 1996; McHarg

1992; Naveh and Lieberman 1994; Thompson, G. and Steiner 1997). These integrate

principles (mainly focused on ecological integrity from a landscape point of view) and

ideas on timing and stages of design. Their ideas form an essential backdrop, context

and integrating matrix for the design of human structures. Forman develops concepts of

patterns and form in the landscape, and suggests a generic process for planning spatial

development to conserve important ecological features in the landscape. This has

influenced the ecological analysis of DesignWays. The landscape ecology approach

does not, however, provide an integrated approach for designing human settlements and

productive infrastructure in an ecologically informed way, such as in the fields of

industrial ecology or ecological design.

Ecological design does not necessarily involve a participatory process. Indeed, Fletcher

and Goggin (2001, pg. 16) contend, “the success of a range of approaches to ecodesign is at least partly contingent on people and this largely has

been overlooked to date”. Permaculture design places emphasis on working with

the client’s interests and needs. Accredited design courses include sessions on local

economic development and community building (e.g. Statham 2000), and there is a

strong emphasis in the teachings on the interrelationships between human and natural

systems (e.g. Bradshaw 2000, writing about community gardens on a brownfield site in

Newcastle). The Rudina Permaculture Research Institute (http://www.rudina.org.mk/), a


172

permaculture development on a former refugee camp in Macedonia, integrated local

participation at all levels, including participation from the Gypsy population as the most

vulnerable group in the area. This was seen as “fundamental to the

sustainability of the project” (Bradford 2000, pg. 8). In the UK, many

permaculture projects have developed in tandem with LA21 processes, engaging the

community in landscape restoration and agriculture (e.g. Charter 1995). The

permaculture process was the starting point for developing the DesignWays approach.

In a discussion of the potential application of participatory futures studies for delivering

the WFD, van der Helm (2003) states that there are few examples of such an approach.

He cites the visioning tool used in the Georgia Basin Futures Project, QUEST which

invites interested citizens and stakeholders to take a 'backcasting' approach “that identifies the most desirable future and explores the trade-offs

involved in achieving it” (Georgia Basin Futures Project 2003), and the global

scenarios work developed in the World Water Visions (Cosgrove, Rijsberman and For

the World Water Council 2000).


to compare different methodologies above.


173

Table 5-9 Methods to express ‘Ecological design process'

DesignWays Attribute 2 Ecological design process Component DesignWays Methods

Use of creative thinking tools

• the emphasis of the process is on a futures orientated approach, the design steps help to integrate thinking about existing assets and a possible future system

• creative thinking skills are taught • parts of the toolkit help to include creative thinking in the design

process

Focus on maximizing existing assets

• several stages of the design process encourage focus on assets and thought about how to enhance them in any future plans

• colour coded tools encourage focus on assets

Tools to apply eco-design principles

• permaculture design principles are clarified and organised into tools for design

• design templates are used to help make the principles visible and easy to communicate

Involving spatial design/ analysis

• focus of the process is on spatial planning and associated social and economic systems

• combines use of maps and overlays with a holistic framework for understanding the interrelated aspects of the physical and non-physical environment

• incorporates techniques of community mapping • includes techniques of landscape analysis, including overlays of

different landscape types and resource patterns • encourages thinking of assets and future possibilities to enhance

ecological integrity by including a template dedicated to the built environment as part of its organising structure

Holistic perspective - human & ecological

• uses templates that ask participants to consider economics, social capital, the built environment and landscapes

• the design process asks participants to trace effects of actions in the wider environment

• the holistic goal setting process asks participants to consider different ways of meeting human needs and their impact on both the environment and quality of life

Focus on underlying processes & patterns

• ecological design tools help to uncover the underlying dynamics of ecosystems and human/ecological interactions

• use of maps and overlays • principles of holistic landscape ecology are used in the process of

mapping landscapes and considering changes over time • focus on natural patterns in tools, analysis, and discussion about

placement of future elements

Structured design process • the order of the design process has been carefully considered to promote creative thinking and productive dialogue

5.7 Creative involvement of stakeholders in planning process

Discussion of the Common Implementation Strategy for the WFD recognises the value

of “encouraging creative participation of interested parties” (European

Commission 2001b, pg. 17). Active participation goes beyond consultation, which only


174

asks people for information and reactions to plans, and instead works with participants

to design solutions to achieve their goals. The philosopher John Stuart Mill commented:

“It is hardly possible to overrate the value… of placing

human beings in contact with persons dissimilar to

themselves, and with modes of thought and action unlike

those with which they are familiar,… Such communication has

always been… one of the primary sources of progress” (Mill

1897; quoted in Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000, pg. 133).

It is widely accepted that the concept of sustainable development itself can be

understood in fairly simple terms, but that implementation and making the concept

practically operable are complex and difficult to achieve in practice. Thus there is a

need to animate this process, to develop a way of making it more engaging and

comprehensible for participants (Linehan and Gross 1998). Speaking of decades of

research into planning in the West of the USA., Duane (1999, pg. 59) commented:

“The form of community participation matters too, so we

should not rush blindly to embrace any form of community

participation without regard to whether it will lead to

effective planning”.

This insight is echoed by Wondolleck and Yaffee, in their book Making Collaboration

Work, which summarises a decade of research into collaborative processes between

large government agencies (such as the USDA Forestry Service and the US Fish and

Wildlife Service), interest groups and communities. They say, “Taking care of process goes a long way toward improving interpersonal dynamics and can

lead to better on–the-ground management of natural resources and

communities” (2000, pg. 101). The top ranked factor for success in one major piece of

research they carried out into ecosystem management was: “the fact that a process was used that differed in significant ways from traditional

decision making approaches… the process was more open to real public

involvement” (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000, pg.101).

5.7.1 Critique of participation in planning Criticisms of participation range from the practical to more fundamental questions

involving power.


175

From a practical perspective, participation can be time consuming (for both the

consulted and consulting) and expensive. Criticisms that participation is costly can

imply that the resources devoted to participation siphon off energy and resources from

implementing programmes to achieve measurable change.

It is hard to determine if participation has been effective, as there is a lack of easily

measurable indicators of process. Attendance at meetings is often taken as a proxy for

participation. There is a need to develop more ‘downward accountability’41. Such

accountability can be enhanced through “transparency and community monitoring

of projects” (Kolavalli and Kerr 2002, pg. 232). NGOs have an important role to

play in ensuring transparency. They act as checks and balances and should be involved

in monitoring use and provision of funding, playing “a counterbalancing role of

civil society” (Kolavalli and Kerr 2002, pg. 233).

Poor application of participatory methodologies can negatively impact their

effectiveness. Researchers cite the need for skilled facilitation (de Venney-Tiernan et al.

1994) and careful design of the overall process. Tuxworth (2002, pg. 32) reminds us "poorly organised participative processes are the bad sex of local

politics – they promise so much, only to leave the participants more

fed up and frustrated than ever”. Increasing the quality of participation implies

the need to invest sufficient time and resources (Jones 2000), and the need to make

communication more appealing and efficient (Vos and Meekes 1999).

Engaging meaningful participation, in which the results are actually used, requires a

genuine commitment on the part of those initiating the participation to listen to the

results (Chambers 1997). This implies a need to change governance procedures,

including building in incentives and rewards for incorporating participation into

decision making, so that it is not perceived as merely an extra duty. It may also require a

change in the perceptions of the roles of government workers, who often see themselves

as experts providing solutions. Such an attitude can prevent them from communicating

meaningfully with communities, as this can be seen as undermining their ‘authority

and expertise’ (Kolavalli and Kerr 2002, pg. 228).

41 Downward accountability implies accountability on behalf of the organisations implementing projects to the communities who are supposed to benefit from them. Upward accountability would imply accountability to funders or regulators.


176

Without careful attention to process, and an attempt to include many voices on an equal

footing, participatory processes can be abused and manipulated by vocal or politically

aware stakeholders. This is particularly a concern as stakeholders have different power

bases and access to resources. For example businesses are able to use money to

influence decision making, whereas community groups are often struggling to find the

resources to have biscuits at their meetings, much less run television commercials or

lobby politicians. Power can also be skewed by the “unfair influence of those

more aware of how to manipulate the process”, which increases the likelihood

of creating groups of people who are ‘in the know’ about participation (usually the

articulate and already powerful), as opposed to those who are not effective in the

process (Glenn 1994, pg. 26). The process itself might be confusing or off-putting for

participants unused to formal meetings, or with little formal education.

Participation processes can entrench existing power relations. Some researchers suggest

this can be counter-productive for the very groups it is supposed to help. Despite the

recent explosion of interest in reaching the socially excluded (e.g. Burnigham and

Thrush 2001/2002; Pain and Francis 2003), participation still has a tendency to be a

democracy for those whom practitioners know how to reach, and a decision making

process for those who show up. The fact that participation can be time consuming also

points to the need to “analyse the resources that people need to be able to

participate in development efforts” (Cleaver 2001. pg. 55).

The recent book Participation - The New Tyranny? explores a range of possible ways

that the current ‘devspeak’42 of participation may be counterproductive to the original,

emancipatory aims of much of the original emphasis on participation in development

work (Cooke and Kothari 2001b). The book discusses cases where the new orthodoxy

of participation allow development agencies to carry on with programmes that do not

address power inequalities in any deeply structural way, at the same time as applying a

gloss of respectability. The contributors to this book do not conclude that this means

that the project of increasing participation should be abandoned, but rather that there is a

need for careful analysis of structural power relations. They suggest that the way in

which participation is deployed and the language used in all aspects of planning

participation still requires careful scrutiny if it is not to fall down the ‘ladder’ towards

tokenism and manipulation. The editors, Cooke and Kothari (2001a), whilst unwilling to

42‘Devspeak’ – the prolific use of the term in development literature and programmes.


177

answer the central question of the book as to whether or not participation will inevitably

be tyrannical, suggest that participation practitioners need to develop a high level of

reflexive self-awareness, and cultivate a practice of questioning the process of

‘development’.

This criticism echoes those of thinkers who suggest that the very foundations of

‘development’ (and it could be added ‘regeneration’) require careful analysis (e.g.

Lappe and Collins 1986; Lappe and Lappe 2002; Shiva 1989). Who is developing

whom, and for what purpose? Who stands to gain from the regeneration process? Who

defines what is in need of development, and what is an appropriate outcome from a

development process? Attention to the micro-politics of participation can obscure the

need to focus on larger scale inequalities and power relations. There is also concern that

focusing on the local scale may obscure the bigger picture of regional priorities, or

issues which participants don’t perceive as important (Groundwork UK 2002). This may

be particularly important when considering sustainability issues. Participative

democratic decisions developed through dialogue, as advocated in Habermas’ (1984)

Theory of Communicative Action, can still have negative, irreversible effects on the

environment, no matter how democratically sound the process (Skollerhorn 1998).

An important issue in terms of thinking about participation in catchment planning is the

degree to which local people and groups are given actual powers to make decisions. In

India, the success of NGO-led participatory approaches to natural resource planning led

the Ministry of Rural Development to give local people a high degree of power to make

decisions about watershed projects since the early 90’s. The Ministry of Agriculture has

also adopted a similar approach to local empowerment (Kolavalli and Kerr 2002).

Attempts to devolve power through participation raises legal questions. For example, to

what extent should the opinions of a few individuals, who have been involved in

planning, override those of elected representatives? The extent of public participation

needs to be carefully thought out and the relationships to legal structures clarified (Cate

1999).

Table 5-10 shows the relationship between participatory methodologies and the process

of participatory communication.


178

Table 5-10 Comparison of Methodologies - Creative involvement of stakeholders in planning process



Sustainability Planning Eco- Design


Planning for Real®

Enquiry by Design

Com

munity

Envisioning

Action Planning

Com

munity Plan-

ning/Architecture

Parish/Com

munity

Mapping

Future Search A

ppreciative inquiry

Open Space

Technology C

itizens’ Jury


ming

Participatory/Rapid

Rural A

ppraisal


Research

Roundtables and

workshops

Participatory Theatre and A

rts

Soft Systems

Methodolo gy

Holistic Landscape

Ecolo gy

Syntegration®

River basin

planning/ICM

EIA/SEA

Multi-criteria

Assessm

ent

The Natural Step

Holistic

Mana gem

ent®

Quality of Life

Ca pital


Planning


Permaculture©

Ecological design

Active engagement in developing plans/options

Use of visual and presentational knowledge

Incorporate use of ‘multiple intelligences’

Hands-on process and dialogue

Use of facilitation and process management

Content education incorporated into process

x x x x x Skills training as part of process

Attention to decision making process


relationship




179

5.7.2 Comparison of Methodologies - Creative involvement of stakeholders in planning process

In the table above, whilst there is a focus on participatory processes under ‘Participatory

Planning Process’ (not surprisingly), many of the other methodologies share some of the

components of active involvement in planning. Planning for Real, Future Search,

Community Mapping, Participatory Diagramming, Participatory Rural Appraisal, Soft

Systems Methodology, Syntegration, Holistic Management and Bioregional Mapping

are all tools which have been developed to encourage ‘hands-on’ processes and

manipulation of ideas by participants, as can be seen from the areas of black in the

above table.

5.7.2.1 DesignWays and creative involvement of stakeholders in planning process

Much of the participation that has occurred in statutory processes, e.g. in public

inquiries and EIA, has involved the opportunity to comment on several different

options. There is a focus on reactions to designs and plans rather than on actively

creating plans and options with participants. Roundtable approaches and focus groups

have often developed from such processes, and are seen as a valuable way to bring

together different stakeholders, with an emphasis on creating a non-hierarchical

atmosphere (Barton, Grant and Guise 2003).

DesignWays is, in some respects, an attempt to ‘animate the table itself’, to give

participants tools they can manipulate and use. Early work on participation in less

industrialised regions led to the development of PRA and RRA techniques (Chambers

1994). DesignWays incorporates aspects of these approaches, in particular the emphasis

on valuing local knowledge and the use of simple interactive diagrams to allow

participants to express that knowledge. Similar to Soft Systems Methodology, the use of

visual diagrams is considered to be an important aspect of helping participants to

understand complex relations and processes (Checkland 2000).

The two most similar approaches to DesignWays in terms of participatory planning are

‘Enquiry by Design’ and ‘Planning for Real®’. ‘Enquiry by Design’ requires an intense

period of work involving stakeholders and urban design professionals, often outside of

procedural and statutory processes (Western Australian Planning Commission 2003a). It

is similar to DesignWays in that it uses “creative design-driven processes, to


180

seek to find ‘win-win’ solutions for sustainable development” (Barton,

Grant and Guise 2003, pg. 79). Both processes require a longer time frame than many

participation exercises (Prince’s Foundation 2000). Both methodologies have a specific

focus on the design process. Both allow stakeholders to step outside of their roles and

ask the questions: ‘how could this be improved; what are the examples of best practice;

how could we be doing things differently?’ (Western Australian Planning Commission

2003a).

‘Planning for Real’ uses large scale maps and models of an area with ‘options cards’

showing different possibilities to engage participants in thinking through concepts and

planning issues. It provides a medium for communication between professionals and

community members (Neighbourhood Initiative Foundation 2003). Similar to

DesignWays, the provision of a physical aid for planning helps encourage non-

threatening communication, as “participants' efforts become focused on the

physical model” (Kingston et al. 2000, pg. 113). The use of options cards or flags for

participants to place ideas on the model is similar to the use of blank ‘leaves’ for

brainstorming new ideas in used to facilitate participation in DesignWays. A ‘Planning

for Real’ approach can be particularly useful in designing small scale physical

improvements to an area, especially given the resource intensive requirement of

building a model, though it has been used successfully on a larger scale (e.g. Wise Use

of Floodplains, Cuff 2001). DesignWays aims to offer a framework for considering non-

physical aspects of the environment as well as physical, through the use of the EASEL.

Non-physical aspects may not be emphasised as well, if the only physical artefacts used

for encouraging dialogue are maps and/or models.

‘Future Search’ is similar to DesignWays in that it is a facilitated, structured process.

Both processes aim to help a wide range of people find common ground and develop a

shared future vision about a particular topic or area of inquiry (Weisbord and 35

contributing authors 1993). It is also similar in its use of Mind Maps, and the active

engagement of participants in writing ideas and developing the Mind Map. There is an

emphasis in Future Search on building transparency in the process by displaying all the

ideas developed by participants (Lewis, J. and Walker 1999). This is similar to the

emphasis in DesignWays on allowing any ideas that participants come up with to be

displayed on the emerging Mind Maps, which are used throughout the workshops. In

Future Search conferences it is not recommended to include educational sessions,


181

instead the process relies on the resources assembled for the workshops at the time (it is

an aim of setting up Future Search conferences to recruit the ‘whole system’ into the

room, so the relevant knowledge and skills should already be present). In DesignWays

educational sessions are encouraged, if appropriate. The process posits that the more

people and viewpoints involved the better. Recognising the difficulty of assembling lots

of people at one time, however, the process has been designed to allow for flexibility,

and for different stakeholders to be engaged at different stages, as they are able to

dedicate the time.

Future Search techniques have been used to create physical plans (Groundwork UK

2002), to develop visions of a sustainable future (Farley and Costanza 2002), and in

future planning in water management (for the Water Development Board in Bangladesh

discussed in van der Helm 2003). In contrast to DesignWays, the process does not have

a set of ecological design principles associated with it, nor does it have as strong a focus

on spatial planning.

DesignWays shares some similarities with the approach known as ‘Action Planning’,

which is an event aimed at providing futures-orientated assistance to communities

wishing to plan their areas, utilising the skills of a multidisciplinary team of experts

(Sanoff 2000). Similarities include that this approach takes several days, requires skilful

facilitation, and is seen as a collaborative event which allows people from a range of

different backgrounds to work together (Wates 1996). Both approaches provide a

framework to bring experts together with lay people.




182

Table 5-11 Methods to express ‘Creative involvement of stakeholders in planning process’

DesignWays Attribute 3 Creative involvement of stakeholders in planning process Component DesignWays Methods

Active engagement in developing plans/options

• engages participation by involving stakeholders and community members in the design of options

• community and stakeholder goals and local knowledge are clarified and developed into a decision making framework

Use of visual and presentational knowledge

• large, colourful Mind Maps used to coordinate information • metaphors for different processes colour coded in the toolkit • meaning is reflected in the size, colour, symbols and form of tools • colourful diagrams are used to introduce complex ideas, built from

smaller pieces to form whole picture • graphic themes are repeated in the tools

Incorporate use of ‘multiple intelligences’

• tools use colour and imagery • verbal and written words used • spatial awareness encouraged through maps and arrangement of

branches of Mind Maps • kinaesthetic knowledge engaged through moveable pieces of toolkit

and site visits

Hands-on process and dialogue

• participants are asked to write, draw and manipulate ideas • possibility to write on ‘leaves’ and add them to the Mind Maps at

any point • many people can input ideas simultaneously • ‘leaves’ can be moved around the Mind Maps to encourage

dialogue

Use of facilitation and process management

• group composition is guided by facilitator but flexibility is encouraged

• the stages of design are facilitated to allow for different processes to be carried out by individuals and groups

• clearly defined process pays attention to order of stages to encourage productive dialogue

• design processes animate the use of the toolkit, basic data is analysed in different ways

• toolkit structure and format facilitates process • use of simple acronyms and design language to facilitate

communication • design process is cumulative, principles are taught in several

different ways

Content education incorporated into process

• TNS framework taught as part of process • examples and case studies of eco-design and sustainable

technologies illustrate possibilities • participants encouraged to share knowledge of subjects and the area

under discussion

Skills training as part of process

• Mind Mapping taught and practised • skills of creative thinking are taught • skills of landscape analysis are taught • ecological deign skills are taught and practised

Attention to decision making process

• encourages focus on common goals and values • ideas are tested against the sustainability principles of TNS • ideas are tested against participants’ goals • movable icons make the decision making process more visible and

encourage dialogue


183

5.8 Scaleable design language to link different geographic levels of scale

"Success in attaining sustainability is more probable for a

region. Yet, landscapes offer significant advantages.

...Planning, conservation and policy are more likely to

make a difference, i.e. to have a visible effect" (Forman

1998).

The above quote from Forman summarises what he terms the ‘paradox of

management’. One of the key difficulties in catchment planning is connecting the local

scale, which is generally the scale at which the public is engaged and project decisions

are made, with strategic, basin-wide planning. A long-term consideration is at the root

of the concept of sustainability, embedded in the maxim to consider the consequences of

our actions on future generations. Environmental thinking implies thinking about

landscapes. Strategic sustainable thinking thus implies a linking of spatial and temporal

considerations. It can be difficult for community members (and many stakeholders) to

consider long time spans, but thinking at a larger geographic level of scale can

encourage a longer time perspective (de Groot 1992).

There is a need to integrate ‘bottom-up’ planning, and the rich local knowledge

generated in this process, with strategic planning at a larger level of scale, especially for

issues such as flood control and pollution prevention in river catchments. Strategic

planning looks at major priorities and concerns, which can create opportunities for

enhanced environmental benefits and synergies between projects. It also tends to

produce projects with a greater ‘value for money’ over the lifetime of the project,

including decommissioning costs (as opposed to much economic evaluation which

focuses on delivery costs related to short-term benefits) (e.g. Briggs 2001; Gardiner

1997; Martin, Steve and Pearce 1993).

Integrating planning across the range of site (or ecotope43), landscape44 and regional45

levels of scale provides many benefits. A strategic framework can guide project work.

43 An ecotope is “the smallest, above-organismic, homogenous, and mapable landscape unit” (Naveh 2000, pg. 78). 44 Landscape as a delineation of geographical scale can be defined as a sub-regional category of geographical scale that incorporates smaller ecotopes, and is a coherent, recognisable unit, such as a river basin (Forman 1998). 45 A region is a broad geographical area with common features, and can be defined by a combination of administrative and political boundaries, cultural and historical factors, broad landform, macroclimate and vegetation types (Forman 1998, pg. 13).


184

Detailed project design can utilise both the strategic information, and the more detailed

information collected at a finer grain (e.g. Gardiner 1997). A bottom-up process of

planning and observation can inform the creation of the strategic framework.

5.8.1 Critique of working at different levels of scale In their recent survey of the concept of scale and global environmental change Gibson,

Ostrom and Ahn (2000, pg. 236) state that the concept of scale is “one of the most important conceptual challenges to [the] union [of social and natural

sciences]”, and suggest that this is partly due to different definitions and

interpretations of scale, and partly to different methodological approaches used when

dealing with complex subjects at different levels of scale.

With regards to coordination of information and data sets, a regional scale may allow

for increased ability to coordinate research results and planning outcomes from multiple

projects. Planning at a large level of scale, however, tends to be characterized by

reduced precision and predictive certainty (e.g. Funtowicz and Ravetz 1994; O'Connor

2000; Tacconi 1998).

The concept that bottom-up planning processes should inform larger scale planning is

challenged both by the inherent difficulty of coordinating such a process and a more

fundamental question as to validity. In his survey on Landscape Ecology research,

Hobbs (1997, pg. 3) questions whether “small scale studies can be reliably

extrapolated to larger scales”. The question of appropriate levels of scale for

planning is not a simple question. The theoretical framework of systems theory offers a

possible mechanism for overcoming some of these concerns (de Rosnay 1975).

One of the important theoretical concepts to emerge from systems theory is that of

causal relationships acting at different levels of scale. Thus, a phenomena observed at

one level of scale may have been caused by (or strongly influenced by) a factor at

another level of scale, which may not be noticed due to the limits on observation of the

study’s focus. The concepts of hierarchy in systems theory provide useful insights for

research into interactions across levels of scales.

This theoretical viewpoint leads to an understanding that descriptions of reality must of

necessity involve analysis at several levels of complexity, preferably linked in an

iterative cycle. Analysis and comprehension of any complex system requires


185

“understanding the constraints at higher and lower levels of spatial-

temporal resolution” (Gibson, Ostrom and Ahn 2000, pg. 225).

There is a need for further research into effective coordination between various policy,

planning and research agencies, and into effective ways in which to organise,

categorise, store and increase access to information from different levels of scale.

Multiple feedback loops between planning at various levels of scale may assist in

increasing the quality of information available for sustainability programs.

Table 5-12 shows the relationship between participatory methodologies and the use of

scaleable design language to link different geographic levels of scale.


186

Table 5-12 Comparison of Methodologies – Scaleable design language to link different geographic levels of scale





Planning for Real®

Enquiry by Design

Com

munity

Envisioning

Action Planning

Com

munity Plan-

nin g/Architecture

Parish/Com

munity

Mapping

Future Search A

ppreciative inquiry

Open Space

Technology

Citizens’ Jury


ming

Participatory/Rapid

Rural A

ppraisal


Research

Roundtables and

workshops


rts

Soft Systems

Methodology

Holistic Landscape

Ecolo gy

Syntegration®

River basin

planning/ICM

EIA/SEA

Multi-criteria

Assessm

ent

The Natural Step

Holistic

Mana gem

ent®

Quality of Life

Capital


Planning


Permaculture©

Ecological design

Uses transferable tools and materials

Provides meta-data structure for planning

Process linking multiple geographical scales

Use of transferable principles


relationship




187

5.8.2 Comparison of Methodologies – Scaleable design language to link different geographic levels of scale

The sustainability planning and ecological design methodologies have an inherent focus

on multiple geographic levels of scale. These methodologies have been developed

within an understanding of environmental and social effects of actions across multiple

levels of scale, and thus the necessity of working at more than one level in order to

solve these problems. The process ‘Quality of Life Capital’ has an explicit focus on

multiple levels, as any one feature or area can provide different benefits at different

levels of scale (CAG Consultants and Land Use Consultants 2001). Holistic Landscape

Ecology has an explicit focus on scale and the role of understanding ecological

processes that cross levels.

The other methodologies can be applied at more than in a level of scale, but this is not

necessarily implicit in their process. Several of them, namely Planning for Real, Future

Search, Participatory Diagramming, Participatory Rural Appraisal, Soft Systems

Methodology, Syntegration and Holistic Management incorporate transferable tools and

materials that could facilitate transfer across levels. The two processes that focus on

mapping, Community Mapping and Bioregional Planning, could also be seen to apply

across levels of scale, as the process of mapping itself is transferable.

5.8.2.1 DesignWays and scaleable design language to link different geographic levels of scale

DesignWays aims to provide a framework and design protocol that can be used at

multiple levels, such that several different groups working on different projects use the

same framework, and are able to communicate easily with each other. The process

provides a way to integrate the generic, essential principles of sustainability, with the

contextual, value-dependent, historical aspects of a particular place, community or

development.

DesignWays differs from many of the methodologies described in this review in that

there is an explicit focus on a systems based view of sustainability, with the emphasis

on participants learning about how to use the design skills and decision making

processes embedded in the DesignWays process. The use of a holistic meta-data

structure based on large, moveable Mind Maps provides a structure for coordinating the

process. The same basic structure is used in all of the workshops, providing a


188

framework for communication between different stakeholders, and between different

projects planned using the DesignWays process.



Table 5-13 Methods to express ‘Scaleable design language to link different geographic levels of

scale’

DesignWays Attribute 4 Multipurpose tools to link different geographic levels of scale Component DesignWays Methods

Uses transferable tools and materials

• using the same basic structure and templates facilitates communication between participants working at different levels of scale

• uses the same format in templates for ease of recognition • develops a common language of design in the metaphors and colour

coding of the toolkit

Provides meta-data structure for planning

• main elements of the templates used in the process to organise information are the basic ingredients of any sustainable plan

• structure of the organising templates encourages participants to look for connections and to fill gaps in knowledge

Use of transferable principles

• TNS principles are transferable across scales, as it is based in an understanding of global flows of resources

• ecological design principles can be applied at many different levels of scale, e.g. to product design, to a house, to a region

Process of linking multiple geographical scales

• uses a process of ecological design that helps to link DesignWays’s various components

• teaches design skills • applied at more than one level of scale in interacting, parallel

process • dialogue between stakeholders at different levels of scale is

encouraged

5.9 Underlying framework of systems thinking "Perception is, to a much greater extent than previously

imagined, a function of the linguistic categories available

to the perceiver...It is only a slight exaggeration to say

we 'see' with our language" (Postman 1993, pg. 91).

In a speech in the Hall of Independence, the former president of the Czech Republic,

Vaclev Havel (1994) suggests that a ‘meaningful world order’ needs to be rooted in

different metaphors than those of the Enlightenment and ‘modern science’ (in the broad

sense of science since the Enlightenment). He proposes the Gaia Hypothesis, which

allows us to see that “we are parts of a greater whole. Our destiny is not dependent merely on what we do for ourselves but also on what we do for


189

Gaia as a whole”. Systems thinking can provide useful new metaphors of design in

an attempt to design for sustainability.

‘Planning for sustainability’ is influenced by the concept of holism, a central tenet of

systems thinking (e.g. Allen, A. D. and Hoekstra 1992; Checkland 1991; Smuts 1926).

The report, The Law of Sustainable Development produced by the European

Commission, explores the ‘legal theory of sustainable development’ and states: “today, no serious study and application of the principles of

sustainable development is possible without the help of systems

science” (Decleris 2000, pg. 8). Principles of sustainable development and their

application are elaborated in this report, which acknowledges the positive role of

schools of ecology in formulating public policy and environmental law, and

“extending the structuring of the problem” (ibid. pg. 55). The report goes on

to state, “The control system for sustainable development is based on a

new philosophy and a different design” (ibid. pg. 56).

Systems thinking is an emerging discipline. It has developed over the last 40 years in

many different fields and through a range of applications. A system is “an integrated whole whose essential properties arise from the relationships between

its parts” (Capra 1996, pg. 27). Systems thinking can be characterised as an attempt

to find common principles that apply at different levels of scale and across different

types of phenomena. It is “a methodology that makes possible the collection and organization of accumulated knowledge in order to increase the

efficiency of our actions” (de Rosnay 1975, pg. 57).

In terms of increasing knowledge about causality and possibilities for technology,

'reductionist thinking’ has had tremendous success. Its intellectual process has been

characterised by fragmenting the world into its smallest indivisible pieces, and

attempting to describe and understand the forces interacting on these parts. This has led

to an increased ability to predict events in many circumstances. The role of many of the

institutions of science has been to provide sufficient information and predictive ability

to enable humans to control and manipulate nature.

Recent discoveries of the interconnected and complex dynamic nature of the world have

suggested, however, that there is a fundamental limit to knowledge derived in this way.

Ecological systems cannot be fully described and understood from a description of the

interaction of simple particles in a Newtonian field of forces. This was brought to


190

attention by the meteorologist Edward Lorenz in the 1960s, through his attempts to

model the weather. In his words, "I realized that any physical system that

behaved non-periodically would be unpredictable” (quoted in Capra 1996, pg.

134). Systems thinking has arisen in part in response to three problems in science: “complexity in general, the extension of science to cover social

phenomena, and the application of science in real world situations”

(Checkland 1991, pg. 74).

As an approach looking at interactions and relationships, systems thinking has

‘inherent interdisciplinarity’ (Maiteny and Ison 2000, pg. 582). Systems

practice is a process of applying these insights in order to operationalise this knowledge.

There is a reciprocal relationship between theory and practice, as the application of

systems thinking helps to illuminate the theory.

There are three major strands of systems thinking, first order cybernetics, or ‘hard

systems’, ‘soft systems’ and second order cybernetics, which combines insights from

the first two strands. Hard systems approaches are concerned with information theory,

feedback and control. Methods include attempts to model interactions, based largely in

engineering, mathematical modelling and operational research (Maiteny and Ison 2000).

Studies often have a clear objective of optimising a particular system, such as the early

work during World War II planning military operations, e.g. intercepting aircrafts with

missiles.

Soft systems methodologies include the perceptions of actors in the system, and are

concerned with systems within systems. Unlike ‘hard systems’ approaches, systems are

not seen as actual ‘things in the world’, but rather as constructs that are ‘brought

into being’ by observers, thus including the worldview of the actors within them

(Ison, Maiteny and Carr 1997). Ison (1998) suggests that the definition of a system “an integrated whole… whose essential properties arise from the

relationships between its parts” needs to include the concept that it is

“distinguished by an observer”. Beer (1980) states “A system is not something presented to the observer, it is something recognized by

him”. Soft systems approaches are based on a learning paradigm. Checkland (1991, pg.

285), author of Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, says, “The unquestioned prime value embodied in ‘a systems approach’ is that continuous, never-ending

learning is a good thing”. Soft systems methodology emerged initially from the


191

application of insights of systems engineering to social problems, and the realisation

that a description of real world systems as ‘machines’, in need of engineering to be able

to better meet their objectives, was inadequate. Instead, systems were seen as including

purposeful human actors, which were behaving in ways that were meaningful to them

(Checkland 2000).

Second order cybernetics incorporate general principles derived from biology which can

be applied to other systems and “a theory of the observer that emphasizes the

interpreted and constructed nature of social reality” (Mingers 1997, pg.

304). Second order cybernetics includes insights from hard and soft systems

perspectives.

More recent developments of ‘hard systems’ approaches have expanded their scope to

look at interactions of many variables. The advent of high speed computing has allowed

models to be built to test different scenarios, often involving sustainability questions,

such as interactions of population and resource use. The ‘World3 Model’ for example

includes the implicit outcomes of different world views in its scenarios, which are partly

based on political and social factors (e.g. scenario – double resources, pollution control

technology, land yield enhancement and land erosion protection), which are modelled as

a comparative tool (Meadows, Meadows and Randers 1992).

River basin modelling has benefited from applied systems thinking. For example, the

Environment Agency has developed a systems strategy for flood forecasting and

warning (Knott and Haywood 2001) and recent advances in understanding neural

networks have been applied to flood forecasting models (Huffman 2001). Many of these

models include human interactions in the environment as data, such as channelisation

effects on flood plain functioning (Franklin et al. 2001) and effects of pollution

incidents and consumer behaviour on water quality (Nimah, Haddad and Dandan 2001).

The MULINO project46 aims to support the decision making of multiple stakeholders in

complex institutional environments. From the beginning, the project included social

science (La Jeunesse, Rounsevell and Vanclooster 2003). This interdisciplinary

approach has included ecological anthropologists and sociologists to look at how

managers will interact with the modelling tools, how people are likely to use the

46 MULINO project - Multi-sectoral, Integrated and Operational decision support system (DSS) for sustainable use of water resources at the catchment scale, funded by the Environment and Climate Programme of the European Union.


192

information, and how the tools can be designed to support learning between fragmented

decision making structures.

Conceptions of science and the nature of living systems influence understanding of

human culture. A shift in scientific paradigm could have profound implications for the

organisation of society and its relationship to natural systems. These implications are

explored in the book Gaia: A Way of Knowing, Political Implications of the New

Biology (Thompson, W. I. 1987).

Lakoff and Johnson (1999) illuminate the way humans construct meaning through

metaphor. The important role of metaphor in the creation of meaning, and the role of

mental models in filtering information, suggests that changing the metaphors of design

is central to a shift in both our conceptions of design and the way in which we can

design. Metaphors are not merely useful mental constructs, but can provide a powerful

generative framework for rethinking the way in which humans interact with the

environment. In a review of shifts towards sustainability in leading organisations,

Doppelt (2003) argues that changes in mental models and assumptions are essential.

They facilitate the organisational and cultural change he suggests is necessary to

achieve changes in management and practice.

Attempts to apply new metaphors to reconceptualise fields of enquiry based on

paradigms of systems thinking include:

• Jouni’s (2001) application of ecosystem metaphors to industry;

• an application of the metaphor of the living cell to community based rehabilitation

for people with disabilities (Johnstone 2003);

• thinking of democracy and consciousness from a perspective of the lessons of

evolution (Banathy 2003);

• and applying an understanding of networks to understanding possible antidotes to

terrorism (Ackoff and Strumpfer 2003) .

Concepts of systems thinking have also had a profound influence on the field of

ecosystem management, in helping to understand “the complexity of ecological

and organizational systems” (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000, pg. 15). ‘Whole

ecosystem approaches’ have yielded valuable insights in applications ranging from

forestry to fishery management, to integrating indigenous concepts of nature with


193

‘modern’ modelling and management of wildlife populations (e.g. Kendrick 2003;

Seixas and Berkes 2003; Trosper 2003).

Research instigated by the Resilience Network explores systems concepts such as

resilience, scale and emergence in relationship to “social-ecological system

change” (Berkes, Colding and Folke 2003). The ‘Shire Conference’ brought together

leading practitioners in the fields of landscape design, planning and ecology to explore

the possible implications of the new paradigms for the art and practice of landscape

planning (Pulliam 2002). The book developed from the conference discussions

concludes that both ideas about nature and the relationships between humans and nature

are shifting. It highlights the advantages and the difficulties of bringing ecology into a

closer relationship with design, as a ‘framework for learning’ (Hill and Johnson

2002).

5.9.1 Critique of systems thinking One of the criticisms of systems theory is that it is too general to provide meaningful

interpretations of phenomena. Application of systems thinking requires a balancing act

between the drive for generalisable principles and thick description, or grounding in

content and context of a situation. Checkland (1991, pg. 9) quotes an influential paper

by Boulding (1956) with regards to this challenge:

“We always pay for generality by sacrificing content, and

all we can say about practically everything is almost

nothing. Somewhere however between the specific that has no

meaning and the general that has no content there must be,

for each purpose and at each level of abstraction, an

optimum degree of generality. It is the contention of the

General Systems Theorists that this optimum degree of

generality is not always reached by the particular

sciences”.

This balancing act can be done, but needs to be considered in each particular case, and

requires continuous attention to the process of enquiry.


194

In an article reflecting on the possible limitations of synergetics (an application of

systems principles to dynamic systems), Knyazeva (2003, pg. 55) suggests that there are

major limits in two areas:

• horizontal transfer, the ability “to transfer the models, constructed for explanations in one scientific field, to another field”;

• and vertical transition, the ability “to make a transition, or a leap, from a model constructed and verified within a certain scientific field to

the conclusions of a general theoretical value and even to some

interdisciplinary conclusions”.

Some researchers feel that the contributions of systems thinking to research

methodologies, science and sociology are still unknown and under development (Lyle

1994; Naughton 1981). Maiteny and Ison (2000) suggest that recent applications of

systems thinking to real world research would suggest that there have been real benefits

from using systems thinking as a framework. This view is echoed by Checkland (2000)

who suggests that while the original aim of General Systems Theory, to develop a

mathematical language which could express and help solve the problems in many

different disciplines, has not been realised, the application of systems thinking has

provided useful insights both in practice, and in developing systems theory.

It is not surprising that there is uncertainty as to the benefits of systems thinking. As an

approach, it attempts to deal with inherently messy and complex problems. As Noble

(2000, pg. 105) says, “although systems research has advanced significantly since the 1970s, what we know about real systems behavior is much less

than what we do not know”. There is a burgeoning field of systems thinking applied

to complex research. The tools and concepts seem to offer a useful, and in the light of

global environmental change, possibly necessary, way of describing and understanding

complex systems.

Table 5-14 shows the relationship between participatory methodologies and the use of a

systems thinking framework.


195

Table 5-14 Comparison of Methodologies - Underlying framework of systems thinking





Planning for Real®

Enquiry by Design

Com

munity

Envisioning

Action Planning

Com

munity Plan-

ning/Architecture

Parish/Com

munity

Mapping

Future Search A

ppreciative inquiry

Open Space

Technology

Citizens’ Jury


ming

Participatory/Rapid

Rural A

ppraisal


Research

Roundtables and

workshops


rts

Soft Systems

Methodolo gy

Holistic Landscape

Ecology

Syntegration®

River basin

planning/ICM

EIA/SEA

Multi-criteria

Assessm

ent

The Natural Step

Holistic

Managem

ent®

Quality of Life

Ca pital


planning


Permaculture©

Ecological design

Based on systems thinking

Underpinning metaphors from living systems

Use of tools to apply systems thinking insights


relationship




196

5.9.2 Comparison of Methodologies - Underlying framework of systems thinking

In the above table, the methodologies under the categories of sustainability

planning, ecological design and systems thinking show a strong relationship with

the use of systems thinking as a framework. This is not very surprising for the

systems thinking tools. For example, in the management process based on systems

principles Syntegration, systems modelling tools may be taught to participants in

order to support the process (Leonard 1996).

The ecological design and sustainability planning methodologies have been

developed on the whole within the last three decades, and reflect an increasing

interest in the insights of systems thinking methodologies. Several of the key

thinkers in these areas cite systems thinking and living systems biology as an

inspiration in the development of the methodologies.

The methodology ‘Future Search’ is an application of systems thinking to

organisational design and management, with an emphasis on ‘getting the

whole system in the room’ (Weisbord and 35 contributing authors 1993) and

exploring interactions between the groups in the room. Several recent articles on

‘Future Search’ have been published in the journal Systems Research and

Behavioral Science (e.g. Oels 2002; Polanyi 2002; Whittaker and Hutchcroft

2002).

Alexander (1977) developed the idea of a pattern language, another approach to

design that focuses on common patterns applied in a particular context. This

process takes a holistic view of the design of space, and describes fundamental

relationships between elements that help to create ‘living’ spaces (see

www.patternlangugage.com). This process goes some way to developing a

process of communication in groups about desired future systems. It has elements

of a design process to link different patterns together, and focus attention on

different levels of scale, but does not provide a methodology for communicating

about this process. More recent work has looked at patterns on a more basic level

in terms of designing space (Alexander 2003a, b). This work has included

developing what Alexander (2000, para. 3) terms ‘generative sequences’,

which aim to “allow a person to generate a good design, step by


197

step”. Whilst environmental issues, such as providing open space, maintaining

access to water and minimising traffic, are covered in the pattern language

approach, it lacks a consistent approach of applying ecological principles to

design and a systematic consideration of the environmental impacts of the design

decisions, such as implications of energy and resource flows. Alexander’s pattern

language concept has influenced permaculture design and the development of

DesignWays47.

De Rosnay and Meadows are both systems theorists who write about the

application of systems thinking to real world problems. De Rosnay (1975)

develops a systemic view of how to use systems thinking to analyse and

understand complex systems in the book The Macroscope, A New World Scientific

System. He describes potential applications of the tools and conceptual framework

that he has developed to education. In the chapter ‘Scenario for a World’, he sets

out some of the ways in which a systemic approach could change our views of the

future. At the end of their update on using systems analysis to model potential

states of the environment under different economic, technological and social

practices, Meadows et al. (1992, pg. 224) suggest, “a sustainable world

cannot come into being if it cannot be envisioned”, and offer several

principles and ideas of what a sustainable world could entail. Neither development

offers guidelines on a process of design for applying these principles.

At the end of his synthesis of developments in systems thinking in the book Web

of Life, Capra (1996, pg.297) suggests, “the theory of living systems… provides a conceptual framework for the link between ecological

communities and human communities”. He advocates the development of

‘ecoliteracy’, a concept developed by Orr (1994). This work has since been

developed into a set of principles for ecologically sound systems for use in

education (California Department of Education and The Center for Ecoliteracy

1996). This work has not, however, developed a clear process for applying these

principles to envisioning and designing future systems.

Some practitioners and academics have developed ways of applying generic

systems principles to ecological design, (e.g. Holmgren 2003; Lyle 1994;

47 The author took a graduate studio with Alexander in the Department of Architecture at the University of California at Berkeley in order to learn more about the approach.


198

Mollison 1990; Orr, D. 1994; Todd and Todd 1994; Van der Ryn and Cowan

1995). This work has many promising applications (e.g. Baschak and Brown

1995; Paterson and Connery 1997; Rijsberman and van de Ven 2000). Much of

this work centres on principles of design, without much attention to the process of

design, or the process of engaging participation of multiple stakeholders in the

design process. Mollison and Lyle develop ideas on the process of design, but this

is not explicitly related to systems principles.

5.9.2.1 DesignWays and an underlying framework of systems thinking

The development of DesignWays was a conscious attempt to embed ‘new

paradigm’ living systems metaphors into a useful tool for design and decision

making. This included an endeavour to move beyond a mechanistic metaphor for

design as ‘thinking like a machine’.

There is a developing field of applying systems principles in holistic decision

making, which has informed the DesignWays process (e.g. Holmberg 1998;

Rijsberman and van de Ven 2000; Robert 2000; Rosner 1995; Savory 1991;

Savory and Butterfield 1999). DesignWays has built upon this work by attempting

to make its underlying systems paradigm explicit in its tools, and in creating a

process of design that helps participants to develop systems thinking, at the same

time as facilitating dialogue and cooperation in the design process.

Table 5-15 introduces the methods used in DesignWays to deliver the components

used to compare different methodologies above.

Table 5-15 Methods to express ‘Underlying framework of systems thinking’

DesignWays Attribute 5 Underlying framework of systems thinking Component DesignWays Methods Based on systems thinking • systems thinking framework integrates diverse aspects of process

• TNS principles are a systems thinking tool • ecological design principles apply systems thinking insights

Underpinning metaphors from living systems

• living systems metaphors are expressed in the communication tools • living systems metaphors are used to tie together the design process

Use of tools to apply systems thinking insights

• the design process uses tools to apply systems thinking insights • the same basic data (ideas developed by brainstorming) are

analysed in different ways through the design processes • landscape analysis helps participants to understand the relationship

between process and pattern • working at more than one level of scale helps participants to

understand links and networks across different levels


199

5.10 Need for a diversity of approaches Whilst DesignWays aims to offer a comprehensive and adaptable planning tool, it

is not necessarily suitable for every type of planning requirement. There are

situations where extensive participation is not appropriate, and the methodologies

described in this review each have aspects that could be useful in particular

contexts. For example, a ‘Future Search’ or ‘Open Space’ approach may be more

appropriate for exploring a particular issue in depth. Oels (2003, pg. 322) suggests

whilst “community based Future Search Conferences which try to address the whole complexity of issues at once have trouble

producing meaningful outcomes” they seem to produce very good results with

sector or issue based conferences.

DesignWays is not meant to replace other forms of participation, instead it offers

a framework that can complement approaches such as ‘Quality of Life Capital’ or

‘Planning for Real’. For example, exercises such as community mapping can be

given a greater or lesser emphasis in DesignWays, depending on the needs and

interests of the community and the resources available. A broad scale

participatory programme needs to be combined with creative communication and

ways of informing a wide range of stakeholders and the public.

Activities and programmes that offer opportunities for community members to

deepen their understanding of the area are also important, such as history days,

programmes linked to school education, and nature walks. It is important to look

at creative ways of engaging the public and stakeholders in implementation and

ongoing management, through activities and programmes such as awards and

artistic events. Supportive mechanisms such as community trusts can help to

provide technical and financial assistance to development (e.g. Wates 2000). The

framework of DesignWays can offer a way to coordinate such activities.

Scientists and stakeholders with expert knowledge about the ecology of the area

are encouraged to attend the DesignWays workshops. Scientific information is

incorporated into the dialogue through these stakeholders. Existing technical

information is also incorporated into the process through the use of maps and

provision of data about the information in the workshops. This information is

synthesised in the design process and informs the results. Depending on the


200

context (and resources available), it may be necessary to supplement this process

with more in-depth multi-criteria assessment, especially if there are aspects of

high uncertainty and risk in the area or plans.

5.11 Conclusion Active involvement in planning suggests a greater degree of engagement than

consultation and information provision. It can help to enhance the benefits of

participation, as the knowledge and aspirations of stakeholders are incorporated

into various design options. Attention to the process of communication can

facilitate dialogue and the development of viable plans.

Whilst it is widely agreed to be a difficult task to implement ‘planning for

sustainability’, and ecological design processes are a long way away from much

of contemporary planning processes, this review shows that there are several

methodologies that can be applied to develop sustainable solutions. Criticisms of

attempts to develop sustainable solutions include the charge that there is actually

no need to do so, either due to a perception of abundance, or due to technological

optimism that suggests that humans have always been able to solve problems

within their environment. The author takes the view that attempting to solve the

problems before they are manifested in the environment is a sensible precaution,

and posits that both participatory processes, and a framework of ecological

design, will be necessary to do so successfully.

DesignWays was developed with the view that ‘business as usual’ in planning and

design was not going to deliver sufficient changes to move towards sustainability

and that new mental models will be a necessary to make such change. Shifts in

paradigm implied by living systems thinking provide the underlying metaphors

and principles for the approach.

The following chapter describes the DesignWays process as it was applied in the

in the heavily urbanised Irk Valley of North Manchester, and outlines the results

of this process. Participants’ experience of the process is analysed in Chapter 7.

This analysis is structured around the five attributes that were explored in this

chapter.

Chapter Five – Participatory Planning Methodologies and ...© Tippett 2004 – Chapter Five –...

Documents

Transcript of Chapter Five – Participatory Planning Methodologies and ...© Tippett 2004 – Chapter Five –...